Speed support

More people have had their say on proposals for the introduction of 20mph speed limits across Bristol. So far about half of people who have shared their views...which would see the reduced speed limits in place in central Bristol within a year – were in favour of proposals as they stand, while another 20 to 25 per cent have been said to agree to the scheme in principle but wanted to find out more. Here's a copy of my online comment on this story, which attracted a number of 'its a fix' type views which in turn generated this response from Tiny_Steve and from me:



Tiny_Steve - "It's obvious that the Council must have manipulated the figures and the people speaking to the Post were hired stooges. As everyone knows, these comment pages are the only true barometer of the opinions of right-thinking Bristolians. Especially those who have nothing to do all day but sit looking at the Post's website."
______________________________

Well said Tiny_Steve. And it could not possibly be the case that 20mph limits are a reasonably sensible move that therefore has a lot of public support could it. After all the findings of this current exercise aren't at all in line with the British Social Attitudes Survey run for the Department of Transport which found ' "the majority (71 per cent) of respondents were in favour or strongly in favour of speed limits of 20 mph in residential streets"...only 15% were against', or the University of the West of England's review which found ' "there are substantial majorities disapproving of breaking the speed limit, supporting reductions in speed limits including local limits of 20mph"...on residential streets, 76% of people are in favour of having speed limits of 20mph'. And there are no further examples of public opinion eg in York, Oxord and Islington supporting 20mph limits here - http://tinyurl.com/8krqfvq

And its obvious that a candidate stongly opposing 20mph limits will become the first elected Mayor of Bristol and stop this kick in the teeth for drivers...er...isn't it??

Pound publicity

Great to see good publicity for the Bristol Pound and thus publicity for many local businesses (here and here). Good to see the local currency issue brought into the Mayoral election with George Ferguson saying he would be happy take his pay - if he wins - in Bristol Pounds (here). The purpose of the Bristol pound as a local currency are pretty well explored and explained in this Post article. The Bristol Pound is a good idea. Given the chaos that has ensued from creating fewer currencies within the EU, doing the opposite and creating more currencies seems good sense to me.

The advantages of the Bristol Pound are that: it enables people to support the local economy and local businesses to support each other; it helps to build the local economy by creating a protective area defined by the currency; local businesses that accept the Bristol Pound are distinguished from any big operations that do not; supportive linkages between local people and local businesses are strengthened; the ideas of buying locally first, taking personal responsibility for the health and wellbeing of the community are promoted; stress is laid on local economic vibrancy and thriving, a broader and greener emphasis than just growth.

Anyone who simply does not like the idea of supporting local businesses that take the local currency doesn't have to use the Bristol Pound. Personally I object to the money I spend in Bristol not circlulating here and doing more work here, so I support thr Bristol Pound.

Growth equivalent to good??

Interesting story and online debate in this Post report in which a  '...cabinet councillor has answered critics who believe the city council is deliberately trying to slow down Bristol's growth and prosperity.'

The truth is that growth is not equivalent to prosperity, though this report suggests they are. Prosperity is a broader idea, encompassing general flourishing, thriving, general wellbeing, happiness and health as well as the economy.

Neither is growth equivalent to success. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY. You have to rein in growth in the genuine pursuit of prosperity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/23/properity-without-growth-tim-jackson

Appropriate aims?

Mayor candidate wants a conversation - The Labour Party's mayoral candidate Marvin Rees is leading a series of discussions...(more here).

Its all very well to seek ideas from 'business, experts and interested parties' but what are Marvin's own ideas for Bristol and those of the party he represents? Nothing in the Post report on this.

For myself I think the aim of making Bristol a 'world class city' is not appropriate because there are many ways in which the city could be made world class which dont improve peoples general wellbeing and security - in short put Bristol's people first Marvin!

Marvin Rees and Chuka Umunna et al who he has shared platforms with, are highly adept at speaking for a long time whilst saying little and committing to even less - like many politicians especially in the bigger parties.

Some conclude that Bristol needs an independent Mayor. This means backing George Ferguson, as he is the only independent - perhaps the only other candidate - with any chance of winning. George will get my second preference vote but stopping a 'Labour' win is going to be tough.

Carbon killer

Air pollution causes the premature death of tens of thousands of people in the UK every year. Toxic carbon monoxide gas is one of the problem pollutants.

The way that even low levels of carbon monoxide can be fatal, by disrupting the heart's rhythm, has been unravelled by researchers in Leeds.

They found that levels common in heavy traffic could affect the way the heart resets itself after every beat.
...study in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine...

Full story here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19093308

More on UK air pollution issues here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/28/uk-cities-ban-polluting-traffic and here http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news/air-quality-a-follow-up-report/

Road reason

A blanket 20mph speed limit on all of Bristol’s residential streets will be in place by 2015 (full story and debate here).This is a very good decision. For me the case for 20mph limits is that residential roads are for living not driving in. See here for why 20mph - http://tinyurl.com/bptjkoh
Many of the Mayoral candidates have been advocating it and are backing the decision because they know that its popular with the public. In the 2010 British Social Attitudes Survey 71% of people asked were in favour of 20mph speed limits on residential roads - http://tinyurl.com/cx2r2ca.

Some persist in saying that here is no logical or proven reason for 20mph limits in residential areas  but in fact there's plenty of research around. See this analysis of the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (http://tinyurl.com/bqbdogs) for instance. Those opposing 20 mph limits seem to be driven by something other than the evidence and reasoning upon it - see the debate on this story on The Post website here - with even more here - for plenty of examples of abuse, avoidance, denial, misinformation and misunderstanding...

Some repeat myths in their comments eg saying that air pollution would be worsened. Actually 20mph limits will NOT increase air pollution, as shown here  http://tinyurl.com/7gp2j89 and are a key feature of a more sustainable approach to urban living. The key is that the streets involved in this decision are residential streets ie people live there. Living there need not and most often does not exclude driving there of course but lets not forget that cyclists and pedestrians and not just motorised vehicles use roads and that all sorts of community activities can and should happen on residential streets if they are safe enough - and this brings me to another reason why I say streets are for living (by which I meant primarily for living) and that is that if the speed limit is 20 mph, in the unfortuneate event of a collision the people involved are much more likely to live than to die.

Some still argue that roads/streets, even residential ones, are primarily for cars and not pedestrians, cyclists and a range of activities, potentially. However, many of the roads/streets in Bristol were there long before cars were owned and used on a widespread basis and some go back even before the invention of the car. Mass car ownership did not take off in the UK until the 1950's and many things have happened on the roads/streets before and since. A good proportion of Bristol's roads/streets were never designed for cars. Roads are simply thoroughfares, routes, or ways on land from place to place - and in residential areas and in cities serve a wider purpose, including easement. Even where they were/are specially designed for car use why should we not choose, with general agreement, to adjust and manage that, especially in residential areas, so that the balance favours human beings not motorised machines running at a speed likely to kill or cause serious injury? See http://tinyurl.com/2vd7pq and also http://tinyurl.com/cgphzz7.

Others say introducing 20mph limits is a waste of money, can't be enforced and everyone will ignore it. They seem to have forgotten the evidence eg from RoSPA on their effectiveness. 20mph limits have saved lives where they have been introduced in Hull, London and elsewhere. See here. No-one has been able to dispute this evidence in the two lengthy online debates I've taken part in.

Speeding = stupid

Interesting how people try to defend speeding when news stories such as this one (Rise in deaths on Bristol's roads) appear - just look at some of the online comments. Of course we should want everyone - all child and adult pedestrians, all cyclists - to use good road sense but no-one should defend speeding or other irrresponsible forms of driving, not least because it contributes to one in every four deaths as a result road collisions (see RoSPA link below). Speeding is unacceptable, period - it is an avoidable cause of death and serious injury if people show some responsibility.

Inappropriate speed contributes to around 13% of all injury collisions, 16% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death. This includes both 'excessive speed', when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/driving/speed/default.aspx

Boxing clever?

Encouraging children to take up boxing could prevent a repeat of last summer's riots, a Bristol MP says.
Charlotte Leslie...said hopping into the ring was "as close as you'll get to a silver bullet" for harnessing the pent-up frustration of teenagers...(full story)

I wouldn't go as far as to say its a silver bullet but I do think Tory MP Charlotte Leslie's argument that boxing is a good means of  personal development for young people is a sound one. Professional boxing is badly in need of a reforming shake up in terms of its safety, money involved, management and the behaviour of boxers. However, amateur boxing, like many other sporting activities, can if properly delivered be a good activity that people can do together in their community. It requires participants to respect and work within a set of rules. It means those taking part get into a routine for training and planning. It promotes physical health and a focussed mental attitude. Surely it is reasonable to assume that these things help to develop greater social responsibility?

Greenery = healthy

More evidence that green spaces are good for you (see here). More access to green spaces means: less liklihood of developing asthma or allergies; lower levels of stress; greater likelihood of a more active lifestyle; greater opportunities to mentally and physically engage with the natural world. Promoting good health was always one of the key reasons why Bristol should be protecting and increasing its green spaces not flogging them - and protecting its green belt from inappropriate developments like the proposed South Bristol Ring Road/Link and the Bristol City stadium (picture shows Ashton Vale green belt)  .

"Urbanisation is a relatively recent phenomenon, and for most of our time we have been interacting in an area that resembles what we now call the natural environment," he said.

"Urbanisation can be seen as a lost opportunity for many people to interact with the natural environment and its biodiversity, including the microbial communities."

While it was not possible to reverse the global trend of urbanisation, he said that there were a number of options.

"Apart from reserving natural areas outside of urban areas, I think it is important to develop city planning that includes green spaces, green belts and green infrastructure," Dr Hanski suggested

Sustainable Societies

Here's an interesting story about a Royal Society report which states that tackling over-consumption in rich countries and high population growth in the poorest are key to building sustainable societies. I'm very glad to hear this from an authoritative organisation but it is something I have been advocating for 30 years! Many others have been doing the same. Examples of my blog posts on this here.

I note that this Royal Society report says we need to go 'beyond GDP' as a measure of progress. This is also something I, along with others, have been advocating for 30 years (and in fact was the subject the dissertation I researched and wrote for my MSc in 1998/99). See examples here. 

Super Science

Check out this program on the BBC. In the 2012 Richard Dimbleby Lecture, leading geneticist and Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse explores the wonder of science and how it enhances our culture and civilisation.

He investigates how science can not only help solve the world's big problems, but also be harnessed to improve health and quality of life.

One of Britain's most eminent scientists, Sir Paul is the president of the Royal Society and chief executive of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation.

Fight for forests

Forests: reasons to protect and conserve... beauty, morality, natural cycles, learning, health, wellbeing, needs, biodiverity, humanity.

Happy invitation

Message from Action for Happiness: On Saturday 11th Feb, thousands of people all over the world are getting together to watch an inspiring documentary film called "Happy" as part of World Happy Day.

It's a great movie and had an amazing audience response at our inaugural screening in London.

Our friends at Happy City Bristol are hosting a screening at Hamilton House that day

 [1pm to 3pm]. So if you're around it would be great if you could make it along.

You can watch a trailer and read a review of the film here:

http://www.actionforhappiness.org/news/oldspeak-happiness-a-review-of-the-film-happy

To book tickets or find out more about World Happy Day see: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2838703639

I really hope you can make it. All are welcome so please spread the word to friends, family and colleagues too.

Very best wishes

www.actionforhappiness.org

www.facebook.com/actionforhappiness

www.twitter.com/actionhappiness

Eco-ethics

Why conserve? Reasons to sustainably manage, protect resources, eco-services, biodiversity and wild places. Copy of a screencast I made recently.

Happiness humbug?

This ('Bristol is 'not a happy city' says poll') is really badly reported, though the issue is an interesting one. If 1 in 5 say they are not happy that leaves 4 in 5 that said something else...from neither happy nor not happy through happy to very happy one assumes. So, how is the Post headline justified? We have a few more people in one national survey who said they are not happy, compared the average - but that's not the same as 'not a happy city'. We need more information!


There's also the issue that this is only a snapshot - and is a self-assessment. Don't levels of happiness go up and down somewhat? What is happiness in any case and over what timescale are we talking? And how are happiness levels best assessed?

The story also mixes up happiness and contentment. The two are not the same. Being content is being satisfied, accepting and having desires that are reasonably restrained. Happiness is thought of as being pleased, feeling gladness or joy, though maybe its not so straightforward as this. For more sense than this article and to explore wellbeing as opposed to just happiness and contentment I'd read Martin Seligman's book 'Flourish'.

Seligman interviewed on newsnight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Vhjmdp4nI&feature=related

New economic model needed

This letter in the Post (copied below) from nine environment and wildlife organisations is pretty much spot on:

THE environmental movement has spoken out repeatedly against policies that put short-term profit ahead of our countryside and wildlife, eroding our natural capital and quality of life.

But rarely have we been as incredulous as we were last week on hearing the Coalition's autumn budget statement. The stunning disregard shown for the value of our natural environment not only flies in the face of popular opinion but goes against everything the Government said in June when it launched two major pieces of environmental policy – the Natural Environment White Paper and the England Biodiversity Strategy.

It is increasingly clear that society needs a new economic model [perhaps something like the one I've sketched out - see image] that accounts properly for our natural capital. Yet with this statement, its "red tape challenge", sudden cuts to solar subsidies, and its ill-conceived planning reforms, the Government is continuing an out-of-date approach that casts regulation and the environment as enemies of growth.

In a region like the South West, one that trades beyond all on the quality of its environment, this is madness.

Is the environment really an obstacle to economic productivity or is it in fact the very basis of it, as well as of our national well-being? Not a hard question to answer and there is an increasingly powerful body of evidence that demonstrates this, including the Government's own National Ecosystem Assessment.

How can the Prime Minister tolerate this gaping intellectual and political inconsistency, and walk with open eyes down a policy path that condemns future generations to a lower quality of life and to a massive and costly struggle to rebuild the country's natural riches?

We appeal to you Mr Cameron to show leadership and champion long-term, sustainable economic policies that will bring much-needed prosperity without destroying all that millions hold dear.

Harry Barton, Chief Executive, Devon Wildlife Trust;
Mike Birkin, Regional Campaigner, Friends of the Earth;
Simon Cripps, Chief Executive, Dorset Wildlife Trust;
Trevor Edwards, Chief Executive, Cornwall Wildlife Trust;
Steve Grainger, Chief Executive, Avon Wildlife Trust;
Gary Mantle, Director, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust;
Dr Gordon McGlone, Chief Executive, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust;
Simon Nash, Chief Executive, Somerset Wildlife Trust;
Tony Richardson, South West Regional Director, RSPB

Five a day

Very informative feature on the BBC website showing that on average from 1999 to 2010 five people were killed on the roads every day (see map of road deaths in the Bristol area for this period - click to enlarge). The time lapse maps are really striking.

Britain has one of the best records in the world for road casualties. However, hundreds [more like thousands] still die on the roads every year. In 2010, the police recorded 1,850 deaths, 22,660 people seriously injured and 184,138 who received light injuries.

About this data:

Using official data recorded by police in Great Britain between 1999 and 2010, we have plotted every road collision in which someone died. In all, 36,371 fatalities are marked on this interactive map [click link to BBC site bottom of this post]. You will also find partial data for Northern Ireland, for 2004-2009.

Detailed information about each crash is recorded by the police at the scene. It is subsequently transferred onto a computer database. This is available to researchers from the Economic and Social Data Service. As with any large collection of data, there will be errors and omissions that occur in this process and some of these will be found in this map. The BBC apologises for any distress or offence that may be caused by the inclusion of these errors.

If you find any errors, please use the feedback form below and let us know. We will endeavour to correct them where possible.

Feedback: Road casualties feature

Answers to some of your frequently asked questions are here.

BBC News - Every death on every road in Great Britain 1999-2010

Sustainability and action

Screencast making sustainablity clearer, more measurable, assessable - and most importantly making it action focussed.

Sustainability: some general definitions

Screencast I've put together about some of the various ways sustainability has been - or can be - defined, as well as asking how satisfactory these definitions are especially in terms their focus on action.

Seligman: wellbeing, happiness, PERMA

Looking over the views of Martin Seligman on the psychology of wellbeing and happiness today. His work is so valuable. Martin E.P. Seligman, Ph.D., works on positive psychology, learned helplessness, depression, and on optimism and pessimism. He is currently Zellerbach Family Professor of Psychology and Director of the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania. He is well known in academic and clinical circles and is a best-selling author... See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Vhjmdp4nI

http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/bio.htm

http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/Default.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligman

http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4903464.stm