It's hard to know these days which way the proverbial worm is turning when it comes to shifts in drug policy. Election years tend to do that. Despite an historical turn of events in Central America which saw Presidents of drug trafficking nations come together to call for world wide decriminalization of drugs, in an effort to end the violence and corruption of the drug trade, the US continues to demur, absurdly claiming that the "War on Drugs" has been a success. Even stranger is Canada's recent announcement that they plan to follow the US model of a "tough on crime" approach to drug policy, which threatens to swell their correctional system in the same ways as in the US. Still, good news abounds with recent studies showing that LSD can cure alcoholism, psychedelics can cure PTSD, and cannabis smoking is not nearly as harmful as the prohibition governments claim. ~ CS
Google+ Presents:
It's Time To End The War On Drugs
To liberalise or prohibit, that is the question. And to answer it the masters of live debate have joined forces with the masters of web technology to create a never-seen-before combination of Oxford debating and Silicon Valley prowess.
Prohibitionists argue that legalising anything increases its consumption. The world has enough of a problem with legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, so why add to the problem by legalising cannabis, cocaine and heroin?
The liberalisers say prohibition doesn’t work. By declaring certain drugs illegal we haven’t reduced consumption or solved any problem. Instead we’ve created an epidemic of crime, illness, failed states and money laundering.
Julian Assange and Richard Branson; Russell Brand and Misha Glenny; Geoffrey Robertson and Eliot Spitzer. Experts, orators and celebrities who’ve made this their cause – come and see them lock horns in a new Intelligence?/Google+ debate format. Some of our speakers will be on stage in London, others beamed in from Mexico City or Sao Paulo or New Orleans, all thanks to the “Hangout” tool on Google+.
The web will have its say, and so can you at the event in London. Be part of the buzz of the audience, be part of an event beamed across the web to millions. Come and witness the future of the global mind-clash at the first of our Versus debates, live at Kings Place
Source:
Intelligence 2 from Google +
North America
America's plague of incarceration
The message is (or should be deeply disturbing. Shouldn't the USA be ashamed at having the world's largest prison system and highest incarceration rate (754 per 100 000 people ? The richest country in the world has so many of its citizens in prison that it can't afford to house them with even basic minimum medical care (more than half of all prisoners have mental health or drug problems . Prison overcrowding itself has become so terrible in California, that in May, 2011, the US Supreme Court affirmed a lower court order that California release some 46 000 prisoners because of the inhuman conditions under which they were being held. In the Court's words, “A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in a civilised society.”
Source:
"
A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America,"
The Lancet.
International Women's Day: U.S. Must Address Impact of Mass Incarceration on Women.
More women are ending up behind bars than ever. Between 1980 and 1989, the number of women in U.S. prisons tripled. And the number of women in prison has continued to rise since. In the last 10 years, the number of women under jurisdiction of state or federal authorities
increased 21 percent to almost 113,000. During the same time period, the increase in the number of men in prison was 6 percentage points lower, at about 15 percent. The increase in women in the federal population was even larger- over 41 percent from 2000 to 2010.
Most women are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses. Over one-fourth are in prison for a drug offense, while 29.6 percent were convicted of a property crime. Addiction plays a large part in a number of women's property crimes, and a lack of available or appropriate treatment only serves to drive their contact with the justice system.
Source:
Justice Policy Institute
From Cell to Screen: The Story of Mumia Abu-Jamal -- Part I
Stephen Vittoria is that rare commodity in Hollywood today: a filmmaker with a conscience. To be more precise, a filmmaker with a strong political conscience. After making two feature films,>Black and White& Hollywood Boulevard (1996 , as well as three feature documentaries:Save Your Life -- The Life and Holistic Times of Dr. Richard Schulze (1998 ,;Keeper of the Flame (2005 and the award-winning art house hit One Bright Shining Moment: The Forgotten Summer of George McGovern (2005 , a portrait of the South Dakota senator who tried to unseat Richard Nixon from the White House in 1972.
For his latest exploration into America's socio-political landscape, Vittoria joins forces with radio producer Noelle Hanrahan to bring Long Distance Revolutionary, the story of Mumia Abu-Jamal, to the screen. Born Wesley Cook in Philadelphia, Abu-Jamal made his name as a tireless writer and journalist during the racially-charged 1970s that often portrayed the City of Brotherly Love as anything but. With his intense coverage of the MOVE organization, a black empowerment group whose ongoing battle with the police and city hall came to a fiery end in 1985, Abu-Jamal become a constant thorn in the side of the city's powerful establishment. Things came to a sudden head for Abu-Jamal himself on the evening of December 9, 1981 when he was accused of murdering a Philadelphia police officer. He received a death sentence the following year, and has been on Pennsylvania's death row until early this year, when his death sentence was commuted to a life sentence in December, 2011.
Abu-Jamal's case remains one of the most controversial and heatedly debated in American legal history, with participants on both sides either protesting his innocence in the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner or his absolute guilt with equal passion and more often, great vehemence.
Source:
Huffington Post
What’s In a Name? A Lot, When the Name is “Felon”
At a
recent conference of journalists at John Jay College, I raised an issue I have about language in the media: the frequent use of the word “felon” to describe a person who has been convicted of a crime.
“Felon” is an ugly label that confirms the debased status that accompanies conviction. It identifies a person as belonging to a class outside many protections of the law, someone who can be freely discriminated against, someone who exists at the margins of society.
In short, a “felon” is a legal outlaw and social outcast.
Source:
The Crime Report
Addiction: Medical Disease or Moral Defect?
Scientific theories that addiction hijacks the brain have just increased the stigma that they were meant to stop. At least in the moralistic bad old days, addicts were still viewed as having free will. Here's an alternative to both of these no-win approaches.
Source:
The Fix
Scientists Explore Hallucinogen Treatments for PTSD, Sex Abuse Victims
Mind-altering compounds, such as LSD and psilocybin, stirred controversy in the 1960s. As the counter-culture’s psychedelic drugs of choice, the widespread use - and abuse - of hallucinogens prompted tougher anti-drug laws.
Foodborne illness outbreaks linked to imported food appeared to rise between 2009 and 2010, according to a new analysis released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wednesday.
CDC reported that half of the foods implicated in outbreaks were imported from "areas which previously had not been associated with outbreaks." The research was presented at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Atlanta. "It's too early to say if the recent numbers represent a trend, but CDC officials are analyzing information from 2011 and will continue to monitor for these outbreaks in the future," said Hannah Gould, Ph.D., an epidemiologist in CDC's Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases and the lead author of the study.
The report looked at outbreaks reported to CDC's Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System from 2005 to 2010 and then parsed out which implicated foods were imported.
CDC researchers found that in that five-year period, 39 outbreaks and 2,348 illnesses were linked to imported food from 15 countries. Of those outbreaks, 17, or almost half of them occurred in 2009 and 2010.
The review found that fish was the most common culprit, with 17 outbreaks total. The second most common food group was spices, the report said six outbreaks were tied to spices, including five from fresh or dried peppers.
Where exactly were these imported foods from? CDC reported that nearly 45 percent of the foods tied to outbreaks came from Asia.
"As our food supply becomes more global, people are eating foods from all over the world, potentially exposing them to germs from all corners of the world, too," Gould said.
David Acheson, former associate commissioner of foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration who now consults for the food industry, said the results of CDC's review were not all that surprising considering the United States is not only importing more food, but more high risk items like seafood, spices and produce.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS , food imports grew from $41 billion in 1998 to $78 billion in 2007 and most of that growth was in produce, seafood and processed food products. It's now estimated that as much as 85 percent of the seafood consumed domestically is imported and, depending on the season, as much as 60 percent of fresh produce is imported.
On the whole, ERS estimates that 16 percent of all of the food Americans eat each year is imported.
In CDC's release on the review, it noted that the findings "likely underestimate the true number of outbreaks due to imported foods, as the origin of many foods causing outbreaks is either not known or not reported."
"We need better - and more - information about what foods are causing outbreaks and where those foods are coming from," said Gould. "Knowing more about what is making people sick, will help focus prevention efforts on those foods that pose a higher risk of causing illness."
Food safety experts and public health officials have been working to improve food attribution data so more can be understood about which foods are high risk, where contamination occurs in the supply chain, and how it can be prevented.
Acheson noted that it's not necessarily an issue of whether food is imported or not, but whether producers are focused on prevention.
"Let's not forget that there is also plenty to focus on domestically - such as the recent major Listeria outbreak and not move all the emphasis onto imported foods," he said in an email. "This is part of the reason why [The Food Safety Modernization Act] has focused so much on preventive controls for imported foods and why FDA has changed their model away from relying just on port of entry inspections."
The NACMCF is set to discuss microbiological criteria, pathogen testing methodology, and sampling plans.
The full committee is scheduled to meet by phone conference on Wednesday, March 28, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. EST. The meeting is open to the public. Those interested in participating can contact Karen Thomas-Sharp at the FSIS Office of Public Health Science, at 202-690-6620 or email: Karen.thomas-sharp@fsis.usda.gov.
According to the federal register notice, the NACMCF was established in 1988, in response to a recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences for an interagency approach to microbiological criteria for foods, and in response to a recommendation of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, as expressed in the Rural
Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1988. The charter for the NACMCF is available on the FSIS website.
"The NACMCF provides scientific advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on public health issues relative to the safety and wholesomeness of the U.S. food supply, including development of microbiological criteria, as well as the review and evaluation of epidemiological and risk assessment data and methodologies for assessing microbiological hazards in foods," according to the register. "The Committee also provides scientific advice and recommendations to the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Departments of Commerce and Defense."
Asthma inhalers may be linked to birth defects, the Daily Mail has today reported. The newspaper said that new research has linked steroid asthma pumps "to a slightly increased risk of hormonal and metabolic disorders in babies"
The research was from a Danish study that looked at whether the risk of developing a variety of early childhood diseases was linked to their pregnant mother’s use of glucocorticoid steroid inhalers - a standard preventative treatment for asthma.
The national study looked at over 65,000 Danish women who gave birth between 1996 and 2002, 6.3% of whom had asthma, and followed the children to an average of six years. The researchers looked at a wide range of disease types but found the use of inhalers was only linked to an increased risk of developing an endocrine (hormonal or metabolic disorder during early childhood.
Further research into the long-term effects of inhaled corticosteroids is warranted, and additional research to confirm the finding of this research is needed. In the meantime, recommendations on the use of steroid inhalers are unlikely to change. Pregnant women prescribed inhaled steroids should continue to take these medications as advised as the benefits of using this medication are likely to outweigh the risks, especially in women who have severe asthma.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Basel, Ruhr-University Bochum and other medical and research institutions throughout Europe and the US. The research was funded by the Danish National Research Foundation, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the German National Academic Foundation and Research Foundation of the University of Basel.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
This study was not widely reported in the media; however, the Daily Mail did focus on it in a story about prescription drugs and risk of birth defects. The story mentioned a range of different types of prescription drugs that could be linked to birth defects, although it mainly discussed a possible link between asthma inhalers and birth defects. While the story did mention that the research found only a slightly increased risk in one category of diseases, it did not report that this study found no significant increased risk for most diseases.
Throughout its article the Mail referred to a ‘major inquiry’ and an ‘investigation’ into the use of a variety of medications during pregnancy. The research in question is the EUROmediCAT study, a large ongoing project to look at the use of medication during pregnancy. The way the project was described might lead readers to assume it is some sort of emergency investigation or was set up as the result of a specific health scare. However, it is an ongoing scientific study and does not suggest any kind of health scare or emergency at present.
This Behind the Headlines article focuses on the study looking at inhalers and potential birth defects, rather than the EUROmediCAT study.
What kind of research was this?
This was a national cohort study that aimed to assess the association of women using glucocorticoid inhalers for asthma during pregnancy and their child’s risk of developing several types of disease during the first several years of life.
Previous research into the safety of inhaled glucocorticoids has suggested that they are safe to use during pregnancy, and are not associated with increased risk of birth defects. This research has provided the basis for many policies recommending the continued use of inhalers for the treatment of asthma during pregnancy. The researchers say, however, that these studies only examined the short-term risks, and that research should assess the children for longer to determine if there are any longer-term associations with a wider variety of diseases.
A prospective cohort study is an appropriate design for assessing associations such as long-term outcomes of medicine use, as it collects information on a range of factors before any outcomes develop, and then goes on to see how they might account for any relationship that develops.
What did the research involve?
This study analysed data from the Danish National Birth Cohort, which included births between 1996 and 2003. Women were invited to participate during their first antenatal visit, at around 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Approximately 60% of the invited women decided to participate. Interviews during and after pregnancy were conducted, and researchers assessed the development of disease during early childhood by examining medical registries.
For this substudy looking specifically at the use of certain asthma medications, the researchers extracted data from the Danish National Birth Cohort on women with asthma who gave birth to a single baby (women carry twins or other multiples were not included in the analysis .
Women were considered as having asthma if the condition occurred at any time during the current pregnancy. Researchers recorded information on the type of asthma treatment at several times during the study - at weeks 12 and 30 of pregnancy and at six months after birth.
Researchers also collected information on the child relating to diagnoses in a number of disease types based on the International Classification of Diseases, version 10. They used a statistical technique called regression analysis to assess the association between use of inhaled corticosteroids and the development of these disease types during early childhood:
- infections and parasitic diseases
- neoplasms (cancers
- diseases of the blood or immune system
- endocrine or metabolic disorders
- mental disorders
- diseases of the nervous system
- diseases of the eye
- diseases of the ear
- diseases of the circulatory system
- diseases of the respiratory system
- diseases of the digestive system
- diseases of the skin
- diseases of the musculoskeletal system
- diseases of the genitourinary system
- any disease
During these analyses the researchers included several measures that have been shown to impact on early childhood health, including socioeconomic status, mother’s occupation, the number of previous pregnancies, child sex, and the use of any non-steroid inhalers during the pregnancy. This allowed them to assess the influence any of these factors might have on the relationship between maternal inhaler use and the risk of early childhood diseases.
What were the basic results?
There were 65,085 mother-child pairs enrolled in the original Danish National Birth Cohort. Of these, 4,083 (6.3% had asthma during pregnancy and were included in the current analysis. Of women with asthma, 1,231 (30% used steroid-inhalers during pregnancy, the most common of which was budesonide. The median (average child age at the end of the study was 6.1 years (range 3.6 to 8.9 years .
In all, 2,443 children developed a disease during early childhood. When the researchers compared the risk of developing diseases between the children of women who used inhaled corticosteroids compared to the children of women who did not, they found there was no significant difference in risk for the following categories:
- infections and parasitic diseases
- neoplasms
- diseases of the blood or immune system
- mental disorders
- diseases of the nervous system
- diseases of the eye
- diseases of the ear
- diseases of the circulatory system
- diseases of the respiratory system
- diseases of the digestive system
- diseases of the skin
- diseases of the musculoskeletal system
- diseases of the genitourinary system
- any disease
A total of 93 children (2.28% of the asthma cohort developed an endocrine or metabolic disorder during early childhood. The endocrine system is made up of various glands that release hormones into the blood. The metabolism is the system the body uses to turn food into energy.
The researchers calculated that children of women who used inhaled glucocorticoids during pregnancy had 62% increased risk of developing an endocrine or metabolic disorder, compared to children of women who did not use the inhalers (hazard ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.54, p=0.036 .
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers concluded that use of glucocorticoids during pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of the child developing most diseases during early childhood compared to the children of mothers with asthma who did not use the treatment. The only disease category in which use of inhalers was associated with an increased risk was endocrine and metabolic disorders.
Conclusion
This large cohort study suggests that the use of inhaled glucocorticoids for the treatment of asthma during pregnancy does not increase the risk of developing most types of disease during early childhood. As the researchers say, this data is ‘mostly reassuring’ and supports the use of these inhalers during pregnancy.
The study did find an increased risk of developing endocrine or metabolic disorders in children of mothers with asthma who used steroid inhalers during pregnancy. However, it is important to remember that the increased risk is relative to children of women with asthma who did not use inhaled steroids, and that only 93 children developed an endocrine or metabolic disorder of the 4,083 whose mothers who had asthma during pregnancy.
The study does not give absolute numbers of children with these conditions whose mothers did and did not use steroid inhalers, but the absolute risk for both groups is likely to be quite low.
The researchers say that their results regarding this increased relative risk for endocrine and metabolic diseases should be investigated further. They point to several limitations of their study, including the fact that they relied upon a clinical diagnosis of a disorder and did not consider other potentially more sensitive measures. In addition, the researchers did not have information on diagnoses made by the childrens’ GPs, and therefore may have missed out on a diagnosis of less severe disease.
They also say that some disease categories had very small number of diagnoses (such as cancers and blood and immune system diseases , which may have resulted in an imprecise estimation of the hazard ratios.
An editorial accompanying this study suggested that the results be interpreted with caution, given some of the study limitations, such as the fact that the analysis did not control for asthma severity or patients’ use of other treatments alongside their inhalers. They say that it is unclear whether the findings are the result of women using inhaled steroids for the management of more severe asthma.
Pregnant women who have been prescribed inhaled steroids for asthma should continue to take these medications as advised, as well-controlled asthma is important for the health of both the mother and the baby.
Women who have any concerns about the medical management of their asthma during their pregnancy should speak with their doctor.
Analysis by Bazian
Links To The Headlines
Are asthma inhalers linked to birth defects? Thousands of pregnant women at centre of inquiry into health problems in babies. Daily Mail, March 12 2012
Links To Science
Tegethoff M, Greene N, Olsen J et al. Inhaled Glucocorticoids during Pregnancy and Offspring Pediatric Diseases A National Cohort Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. March 1 2012, vol. 185 no. 5 557-563
Related editorial
George J, Abramson MJ, and Walker SP. Asthma in Pregnancy: Are Inhaled Corticosteroids Safe?. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2012; 185: 476-478.
Those instructions are contained in House Bill (HB 1129, a largely technical bill dealing with powers of the state chemist. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is expected to sign the bill.
When the Indiana Legislature began its business for 2012, it was on the verge of adopting Senate Bill (SB 398, the upper chamber's version of the state chemist bill. It included language that would change current Indiana law, which prohibits raw milk from being sold for human consumption, to allow on-farm raw milk sales by licensed producers with no more than 20 cows.
After it passed the Senate, 30-20, Jan. 30, the measure was dropped and work went forward on HB 1129, the House version of the state chemist bill.
In addition to calling for the study, the new Indiana law:
- includes a definition of "raw milk" as "any milk or milk product, including butter, yogurt, cottage cheese, and cheese from any species other than humans that has not been pasteurized according to processes recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration," not including U.S. Department of Agriculture approved veterinary biologics
- adds conditions to state law that would make animal feed unfit if any part is "filthy, putrid, or decomposed;" if it has been prepared, packed or held under unsanitary conditions; or if includes any diseased animal
- adds specialty pet food to the previously covered commercial feeds and pet foods
- requires raw milk distributed as commercial feed for animals to be prominently labeled "Not for Human Consumption"
- requires the animal-health board's raw milk report to the governor and Legislature to be made available to the public
- empowers the state chemist to issue subpoenas
In launching a study, Indiana is following the track Wisconsin took in 2010 after former Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed a bill that would have made the commercial sale of raw milk legal. Wisconsin's study took the approach of setting certain criteria to increase the chances that raw milk could be safe if it were legalized. Wisconsin SB 108, which pretty much ignores the safety standards and other criteria recommended by the Wisconsin study, has not gone anywhere. And SB 108 has picked up a long list of opponents, including state cheese makers, dairymen, grocers and veterinarians, in addition to public health professionals and local health organizations.
Wisconsin lawmakers remain in session until May 30.
A raw milk bill passed the Kentucky Senate in January, 22 to 15, but it has remained bogged down in the House, locked up in the House Agriculture and Small Business committee. The measure sets up a mechanism for shared cow ownership agreements without any state dairy permit requirement.
Kentucky lawmakers are scheduled to go home on March 29.
In New Hampshire, where adjournment is set for June 7, a bill that allows the unlicensed manufacture of homemade foods and raw milk sales ( HB 1402 still has not cleared the lower house. That may change on March 20 when the House has the measure scheduled for executive session.
Raw milk bills in New Jersey and Idaho are also sitting in committees, so far without action. The New Jersey Legislature remains in session year-round, while Idaho lawmakers go home April 7.
Antibiotics are not usually recommended for treating E. coli infections; however one of these drugs showed promising results when given to victims of last year's massive European outbreak linked to sprouts.
Azithromycin, administered to patients to prevent the spread of meningitis, was associated with a shorter duration of shedding of the E. coli O104:H4 bacteria in stool specimens according to a study published in the March 14 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association .
Patients who received azithromycin were also less likely to carry the bacteria long-term. Out of a group of 65 patients treated at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Lubeck, Germany, 22 were given the drug and 43 received no antibiotic treatment. Patients who received the drug (both in-patients and out-patients were treated approximately 12 days after they started showing symptoms of infection.
After 21 days, only 31.8 percent of the treated group were still carriers of the bacteria, whereas 83.7 percent of those not treated continued to be Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC carriers.
Long-term carriage was measured starting at day 28. At this time, 4.5 percent of those treated carried the bacteria. That percentage was 81.4 among those not treated with azithromycin. At day 35, none of the treated patients was still an STEC carrier. However 8 days later, at day 43, 57.7 percent of the control group was still carrying the bug.
Long-term carriage of STEC can be dangerous both to those exposed to the patient, who is infectious, and to the individual himself.
"Long-term carriers of entheropathogenic bacteria represent a chronic risk of human-to-human transmission and, therefore their individual social and working life is legally restricted by the German health authorities, posing a high psychological and socioeconomic burden," says the report, according to Science Daily.
These patients also risk persistent diarrheal symptoms, according to the authors.
The jury is still out on whether or not azithromycin can be used to treat STEC patients, in addition to reducing the endurance of the disease. A major concern in STEC treatment is preventing the onset of hemolytic uremic syndrome, or HUS, a potentially life-threatening complication that affects the kidneys.
"Clinicians should not consider these data as an endorsement of the safety or efficacy of using azithromycin to treat diarrhea caused by Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, because the subjects in this study were treated late in illness well after the outcome of greatest concern, i.e., HUS, had already ensued," warns Dr. Phillip Tarr, Co-Leader of the Pathobiology Research Unit and Director of the Division of Gastroenterology and Nutrition at the Washington University School of Medicine's Department of Pediatrics.
While the study was "very well done," he says, "its applicability is limited to the carriage state, after the most severe phase of illness has passed," he noted in an emailed statement to Food Safety News.
It is possible, however, that future research on the drug may reveal an ability to combat STEC symptoms.
Azithromycin could be "a safe therapeutic option for the treatment of [Shiga toxin-producing enterohemorrhagic E. coli] diarrhea to avoid development of HUS," said Dr. Johannes Knobloch of the University of Luebeck when presenting the preliminary results of this study at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC in Chicago last September.
However, a prospective trial would need to be conducted to test this potential, he noted.
The European outbreak, which began in May of 2011 and was eventually linked to sprouts grown from fenugreek seeds, sickened 3,816 people in that country alone and over 4,000 people total. Of all victims, 852 developed HUS and 50 died from both HUS and non-HUS infections.
 |
A coalition of consumer advocacy groups, health organizations, and food and nutrition groups has officially called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA to enact new labeling requirements for foods that contain added sugars. The Environmental Working Group ... |
 |
We live in a world where corporate profit is more important than consumer health. Because our diets, for the most part suck, we turn to Rx drugs for health and survival. Before getting into why Rx drugs? Let's talk a walk on the wild side. It's a Friday or Saturday... |
As part of our project to create a new vision for London, we want your views on how to improve the city for cyclists and walkers
Cycling and walking have had to wait their turn in this fortnight-long crowdsourcing project. Why? Two reasons. One, because cycling issues in particular attract comment thread contributions of a very high standard, so I've saved that treat for near the end. Two, because if London were a truly cyclist and pedestrian-friendly city it would look, sound and feel radically different. Just imagine. After all, imagining is a part of what our model mayoral manifesto is about.
One burning question is whether Boris Johnson, the "cycling mayor" who claims he's been leading a "cycling revolution", has got his policy priorities right – and, if not, what would a model mayor do differently? His Barclays-sponsored cycle hire scheme has undoubtedly caught on in central London and just been extended east. But has the take-up justified the cost to Transport for London, given that sponsors Barclays are contributing only an undisclosed fraction of its cost? Should our model mayor keep expanding the scheme along its present lines, do it differently, or curtail it and invest in different cycling projects instead?
At the beginning of his term Johnson halved funds for extending the London Cycle Network, a web of cycle-friendly corridors across the whole of the capital. He's introduced some blue-painted, radial cycle superhighways on commuter routes, but was that the right choice? If not, what should happen next instead?
Cycling campaigners have been making their mark on London's politics, infuriated by Transport for London's proposed new Blackfriars Bridge road layout and impassioned by recent fatal collisions. The London Cycling Campaign is urging the next mayor to help London to "Go Dutch," by supporting "continental-standard cycling infrastructure in the capital," and in so doing tempting many more Londoners to turn to pedal power.
Top of its list of principles is safety – an acknowledgement that the dangers of London's road are the biggest reason why so many journeys that could be made by bike are not, as Transport for London's own research (pdf has confirmed. The same document found that, "the growth in cycle travel between 2001 and 2008 was largely caused by cyclists increasing their cycle trip-making. There is no evidence of a net increase in the number of cyclists overall." There's food for thought.
The watchdog London TravelWatch argues that, "London's streets can and should be more pedestrian-friendly." It mentions better upkeep of pavements, removal of "clutter" such as guard rails, "fresh thinking about the design of crossings" and more encouragement of walking short distances between stations. But where do readers stand on "shared space" schemes, which aim to equalise the rights of four-wheel, two-wheel and foot travellers by removing features designed to segregate them (and much else besides .
Kensington and Chelsea councillor Daniel Moylan, who is also Boris Johnson's appointee as deputy chair of Transport for London, is a champion of the principle and a major force behind the recently reconstructed Exhibition Road. Moylan is a Tory, but support for shared space crosses political boundaries. Should London have more of them? Is segregation better for cyclists and pedestrians in some situations but worse in others? If so, how should the difference be defined?
Finally, as I work feverishly on drafting the manifesto for a model mayor, I'm very tempted to include a bold cycling idea left on a transport thread last week by commenter Ben Beach. He proposed establishing factories in high unemployment areas of London to manufacture bespoke, lightweight bikes.
"The economies of scale could allow the distribution of hundreds of thousands of these bikes, and with new cycling infrastructure kickstart a genuine cycling revolution," Beach wrote. He argued that unemployment would be reduced, cycling encouraged and air quality improved, while the cost of boosting this transport mode would be considerably less than building extensions to London Underground lines. I like that plan. How about you?
thereverent suggests:
Remove the remaining gyratorys in London (Vauxhall, Aldgate, Parliament Square, etc . The LCC has some up with a good plan for a much better Parliament Square for example.
Get small streets in central London (particually in Soho and the City closed to motor traffic (open only to pedestrians and cyclists . These are only used as Taxi rat runs at the moment.
Ensure that any TfL staff working on cycling projects actually cycle (and not just at the weekend . This should reduce the amount of poorly design cycle paths.
Ensure that all cycle paths end in an appropriate way (safely with a dropped curb rather than just disappear .
At major junctions segregate the cycle lane and introduce cycle only phases to the lights.
Get more Met Police out enforcing the road laws at rush hour (dangerous driving, red light jumping, blocking junctions, using a mobile phone, driving into ASLs on red, etc . particular focus on HGVs and Coaches which are more dangerous to vulnerable road users.
Ensure all cycle lanes are at least 1.5m wide (or 2m where they can be and have parking banned on them at all times (double yellow or double red lines .
When there are roadwork warning or division signs the default should not be to put them on the pavement or in the cycle path (blocking them .
A crackdown on pavement parking (already banned in London and removal of all parking spaces that are half on the road and half on the pavement (reducing the pavement width .
Pedestrian crossings to be sited on obvious pedestrian routes (so you don't have to walk out of your way to cross the road safely. Ensure they have a decent length of time to cross.
Ensure the sighting of signs, utility boxes, advertising boards etc don't obstruct the pavement. Also get rid of guard rails between roads and pavements (dangerous to cyclists and an obstruction for pedestrians .
Get rid of Pelican crossings (with the flashing amber phase that drivers ignore and drive through and replace with Puffin crossings or Toucan crossings (for both pedestrians and cyclists which have no flashing amber phase.
DaveHill responds:
I might just have to cut and paste this. All further Labour-saving contributions equally welcome.
AndyLucia suggests:
Arm all pedestrians, so they have a way of dealing with those cyclists who don't understand that the red light applies to them as well!!
DaveHill responds:
I have great sympathy with cyclists but the reckless ones are a serious menace on the roads. One of my loved ones avoided serious injury by a whisker only yesterday by a cyclist hurtling through a red light as she crossed a road on green. Absolutely outrageous. I'd like to see much stricter enforcement of all rules of the road in London, from uninsured drivers to dangerous cycling.
P0kerFace suggests:
Schools
- Cycle parking facilities at all schools in the greater London area, enough to support 10% of pupils cycling to school.
- Shower facilities and lockers at all schools to be made available to children and teachers who cycle to school in the morning
- 15mph limits or less on roads that have schools beside them
- Special 'yellow routes' on roads within 1/2 mile of a school leading to the school where segregated cycle ways are unavailable
- Annual cycle-safe training for all pupils in junior and secondary schools
Buildings and Parking facilities
- New buildings to have minimally enough cycle parking for 20% of capacity of building
- New parking to have cycle parking equivalent to 20% of the number of car parking spaces
- New builds to have shower facilities for cyclists and runners
- Financial help with installing cycle parking and shower facilities in existing builds
- Publically owned or financially assisted institutions (public car parks/museums et al to have full financial support for adding/growing safe cycle parking
- Cycle parking/shower co-ops, whereby several small to medium sized enterprises are encouraged and supported to set up shared cycle parking/shower facilities
Driver Awareness
- A series of advertisements to be played on London radio such as Magic FM explaining the rights of cyclists. These adverts will ~ Explain that road tax does not exist and that cyclists have every right to be on the road.
~ Insist drivers should not be in the Advanced Stop zones ~ Remind drivers that they should give cyclists the same amount of space when overtaking as they would a car ~ Highlight that cylists are entitled to cycle in any lane on the road and take the middle of the lane when they feel it is safer to do so ~ Encourage drivers to be patient with cyclists, particularly at junctions ~ Highlight that cyclists are often children and the elderly, even if they can't see this from behind ~ Remind them they can be prosecuted for being abusive to cyclists ~ Highlight the many advantages of cycling, including but not limited to
- physical health improvements, mental health improvements, reduced sick-leave, financial benefits, savings to NHS, reduced obesity, faster during rush hour, carbon neutral, non-polluting and most of all: great fun
Infrastructure
- Implement the road redesigns as recommended by LCC http://lcc.org.uk/pages/go-dutch
- The Times campaign is highlighting the 500 most dangerous junctions. Make those that fall within London safe.
- Complete the LCN+ network, with all lanes minimum 2 metres wide
- Put policies in place to ensure cyclists are put at the forefront of all future transport system works
- 20mph limits in residential areas where no segregated cycle lane is present
- Pending successful safety results of east london trial, roll out Cyclists-first traffic light systems at junctions london-wide
- Convert more one way systems to two-way, using only contraflow cycle lanes where possible
- Expand the cycle hire scheme into the outer boroughs. Discount rental for children, the elderly and students.
- Build more cycle parking on high streets and at supermarkets
Legal and Policing
- Appoint a London cycling commissioner
- Prevent HGVs from using the roads between 7am and 9:30am
- Extend congestion charging zones and low emissions zones in all directions
- Ban and fine parking in cycle superhighways and other cycle lanes, including at weekends
- Introduce European style presumed and strict liability laws
- Reform the law so that drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians while driving dangerously receive an appropriate sentence
- Allow T-junction style left turns for cyclists at Traffic lights (i.e. can pull out when no cars approach from right
- Expand the police cycle task force, prioritise bike theft.
- Regulate sellers of second hand bikes to ensure they are not passing on stolen bikes
- Revoke permission for motorcyclists to use bus lanes, following the unsuccessful trial period in which accident rates increased.
- Crack down on speeding, driving while drunk/drugged, driving without insurance/licence, jumping reds, using mobile while driving.
- Make the last Sunday of every month between 9am and 5pm car-free (with obvious exceptions . Charge ~?30 fines for breaches and enforce in strength early on
Public Transport
- Improvements to trains to better support cycles on trains. E.g. roll out more trains styled like the east london line trains.
- Cycles to be permitted more widely where possible, particularly on the DLR and the Croydon Tramline.
DaveHill responds:
You haven't just chucked this stuff together, have you?!?!? Perhaps you should expand it into your own manifesto - wouldn't need much more work. A fantastic contribution. Many thanks.
JoeDunckley suggests:
Shared space: great for little streets that are full of people but which don't make sense as through routes. Places like Brick Lane, where, er, it's being ripped out by Tower Hamlets (with TfL funding . Especially so if traffic is further reduced, e.g. by clever layout of the one-way system such that the streets are useful for access and deliveries, but useless as a taxi rat run.
Crap for massive through roads like Exhibition Road, which just fill up with motor vehicles. I mean, it's slightly better than it was before, but a massive wasted opportunity. If they'd blocked it up half way along to prevent thousands of vehicles passing through every hour, perhaps it would work. Or made all the entry and exits left turns only for motor vehicles, so that it always sends you back in the direction you came from, reducing its utility as a through route.
"Shared space" is pretty vaguely defined. There are many different shared space designs, and the only unifying feature is the idea of opening up the carriageway for pedestrians. If that is done by severely restricting the freedom of drivers to go wherever they like, drive dangerously, and park anywhere: great!
The problem is the extreme "naked streets" side of things, which advocates the exact opposite -- that idea that if you just take away all the signs and signals and kerbs and give motorists absolute freedom, people will play nice and everything will sort itself out. This variety of "shared space" does not cross political lines. It's pushed by libertarians like Daniel Moylan, and the Mitchell brother who was advising No.10 but whose name I forget. It's based on libertarian ideology and it results in the most powerful road users -- the motorists -- dominating the space and bullying everybody else out of the way.
DaveHill responds:
Thanks. You've helped me clarify my own rather conflicted view of "shared space." I haven't been to Exhibition Road since its surgery was completed so I'm grateful for your assessment of it. Putting the pedestrian first does seem to be the way to go.
solomongursky suggests:
Encroaching an ASL after the lights change is a TS10 offence, anecdotally I heard the cops are reluctant to enforce because it seems unfair to penalise motorists for what the police consider a trivial offence.
Allowing for the disparity in numbers between cyclists and motorists on many London roads (I know cyclists are the majority on some those figures look wildly disproportionate.
And then:
The Met does not separately record the numbers of motorists infringing ASZs, but does record the number of fixed penalties it hands out each year for red light offences as a whole. Since 2008 it has issued about 3,000 fixed penalties annually at the roadside to motorists for these offences. In the same period the number of fixed penalties for cyclists for red light offences has gone up from around 1,000 in 2008, to 1,700 in 2009, to over 3,000 in 2010. So the figures for cyclists and motorists are now roughly equal.
DaveHill responds:
Thanks, that's extremely useful. Perhaps the manifesto ought to simply say that under the model mayor all rules of the road would be enforced with far more rigour and without prejudice against any particular type of road-user for the equal benefit of them all. Your suggestions for improvements welcome.
mestizo suggests:
10mph speed limit on all roads, except A roads and the bit of the M4 that goes into London. Then replace most traffic-light controlled crossing with zebra crossings, and put roundabouts on junctions. A few months of strict enforcement of the proper road rules.
I'm serious! As a driver, you spend most of your time either not moving, or speeding to reach the next lights before they go red. Everyone is wound up. By doing this, we'd have order and calm. Cyclists would be safe, and driving would be no slower - in fact probably faster because all the incidents and bad driving that result from the frustration and nippyness of London driving would stop.
DaveHill responds:
Thanks. I can see that you are indeed entirely serious. Might be hard to persuade voters that 10 mph is a good idea. Would 20 be plenty? My worry about more zebra crossings is that my impression - not very scientific, of course - is that increasing numbers of drivers - and cyclists - seem to be ignoring those we have. Makes me extremely cross. The model mayor would make a big noise about this erosion of common civility, I reckon.
botned suggests:
I think that it would be a good idea if those posting declared their staus, namely are they 1/ Walkers 2/ Cyclists 3/ Car drivers, or any combination of the three.
DaveHill responds:
OK. Use bus and Tube a lot and walk a lot. Almost never drive (no fun or cycle (too scared .
deirdremcg suggests:
I mentioned this in a previous topic, but what we must not accept is the argument that London's streets are 'not suitable' for the construction of cycle lanes. Such an argument leaves no room for contingency; if cycling infrastructure is improved and motor vehicles more heavily regulated, the space will appear. It is well known that traffic swells to the available space, so by limiting the space AND providing high quality alternatives, the street space becomes far more amenable to cyclists and pedestrians. A road user hierarchy should not be anti-motor vehicle, but should recognise that some road users are more vulnerable than others. Otherwise, the kind of innovative approaches already detailed are sensible, in particular phased traffic lights, left turns at T-junctions, segregated cycle lanes and so on, where necessary. My feeling is that on the kind of quiet streets found all over London, segregated routes are not always necessary, but that a 20mph speed limit should be standard. That, in combination with fairly narrow streets and little traffic, should make it a lot safer.
HGVs on the streets of London are a real hazard. The cause disproportionate damage to public infrastructure and pose real dangers to walkers and cyclists. This is exactly the kind of thing a strategic body like the GLA should be working on. It is simply unacceptable for such large vehicles to be using London's roads, especially when there are alternatives. The Regent's Network has done a lot of research into using London's waterways, with sensibly placed logistical sites where lorries can load their freight on to boats. Canal- and river-based transport is much more efficient and much less damaging. It may mean that Tesco have to come up with a more sophisticated delivery system than simply adding another destination for a fully-loaded lorry, but what are the alternatives? London is a huge market, and no business will leave simply because they need to adapt to some sensible regulation.
The cyclist lobby is vocal and well organised. Unfortunately, walking does not have such a public presence, despite the fact that we all do it. The benefits to walking are myriad, but it does require the right kind of infrastructure. Legible London should be rolled out across the capital, and walking should be more fully considered as a mode of transport, a mode which is more fully integrated into the system as a whole. For example, all bus, tube, tram and rail nodes could have well-placed local maps, perhaps with walking times to other nearby nodes displayed. Kerbs could be better designed. Traffic lights could be phased so that pedestrians don't have to run to cross in time! These are all genuinely cheap measures, and there is a real financial mismatch between the provision for the mode that everyone uses, i.e. walking, and those which only some people use, i.e. the tube, Crossrail and the cable car (! . Investment in walking and cycling may not be very blingy or exciting, but it makes a real difference to everyone. It is time that the transport ideology of moving people over a longer distance more quickly was rethought.
DaveHill responds:
I cannot find a word to disagree with in your comment. Thank you. Fellows readers might find it useful to follow the link to Legible London.
No comments:
Post a Comment