The replacement of the highly competent Douglas Alexander with Ruth Kelly who seems to have feet of clay and has bungled most of her big jobs so far, is deeply disappointing. It suggests that Brown does not rate the issue as very important, given that Alexander, who had done a solid job and dared to raise a few hackles through pushing a form of bus reregulation, is a Brown protégé.
Kelly will have little time to digest a very difficult brief before the publication of the series of vital documents on the railways expected to be issued on July 17th. She will certainly have no opportunity to make any changes. While she is extremely bright, she is one of those dull ‘on message’ ministers who is unable to communicate with the public, and according to my inside sources in the Education Department, was totally out of her depth in that job. Let us hope, at least, that the highly competent Tom Harris keeps his post or, even better, is promoted to minister of state instead of that boy racer Stephen Ladyman.
Ms Kelly’s appointment comes on the day the annual road deaths report has been issued by the government. It shows a very slight reduction in fatalities, from 3,201 to 3,172, not really statistically significant. Now in a rational world, the announcement of 3,000 deaths, a disaster of 9/11 proportions, would be top of the agenda for Kelly.
But it won’t. Indeed, tomorrow’s papers will barely have any news on the figures at all apart, possibly, from recording the fact that the government is on course to meet its 2010 targets on casualty reduction.
This is a terrible recipe for complacency and merely demonstrates that the casualty rate is far too low. There are still numerous measures that could be taken to reduce road deaths, notably the introduction of more speed cameras, more visible traffic policing, universal 20 mph zones in residential areas of towns and cities, and harsher punishments for those who cause death on the roads. Moreover, those who kill cyclists or pedestrians should be assumed to be at fault unless they can show otherwise. That would undoubtedly reduce speed.
Yet, the government’s approach has always been to tread carefully on the so called rights of motorists before imposing any measures that might reduce casualties. Painting speed cameras yellow is the most ludicrous demonstration of this.
This is a long standing issue. A member of RoadPeace, the road safety charity, recently gave me a copy of ‘Murder most foul’, a pamphlet published in the 1940s which raises a lot of issues that are pertinent today, such as the priority given to road transport over pedestrians in towns – even before the days of those ghastly pedestrian barriers – the blithe acceptance of this huge death toll (4,000 at the time) and the arguments by the motoring lobby that ‘speed is not dangerous’. It is will worth a read.

Went on an early morning demonstration organisation by the 4x4 alliance, an excellent group of people campaigning against the growing trend of the use of these ridiculous vehicles in towns. The demonstration focussed on people taking their kids to school in Highgate, an area with seven private schools, which puts at risk all those schoolchildren who are using more environmentally sustainable ways of getting there.
Five people dressed in dummy suits, and crossed the road in front of 4x4 drivers holding placards saying that even dummies know that 4x4s are not suitable for taking kids to school. Meanwhile ‘vehicle safety inspectors’ gave leaflets to the 4x4 drivers pointing out that their cars were dangerous to other road users. Indeed, when three people passed by in a Smart car, one feared for their safety should they be unfortunate enough to encounter a 4x4 in an accident.
These 4x4s seem to be getting bigger and bigger, and I do genuinely feel threatened by them when I am riding my bike. Statistics show they present a greater danger to pedestrians and cyclists than ordinary cars, and this raises a host of moral questions. While their supporters argue that their freedom to choose whatever vehicle should not be constrained, there are plenty of good counter arguments. Would one, for example, be allowed to drive tanks down main streets, which after all would provide the maximum possible safety for its occupants, the reason given for many 4x4 drivers for their choice? There is a Hummer in a street near me and it is a truly terrifying prospect that there could be hundreds of these horrendous vehicles driving round London since the manufacturer has started exporting them to the UK.
The response to the demo was generally positive. A few 4x4 drivers were impatient and started hooting, but most were prepared, at least, to listen. One suspects that most have never considered the wider implications of their vehicle choice. Hopefully, 4x4s will go the way of bullbars and become unfashionable.

I did a whole series of radio and TV interviews today to mark National Bike Week. Cycling England, on whose board I sit, put out a press release giving some statistics on how cycling both reduces the carbon footprint and entails health and fitness benefits.
People often express great surprise when I say I cycle round London but it always strikes me that cycling is such an obvious way of getting round town that I am more surprised that they don’t. The objections which popped up in the media interviews were the usual ones: safety, weather, luggage and sweating. It is pretty easy to swat away all these objections. Yes there are dangers, but the health benefits far outweigh them; the weather is surprisingly dry, though this was not an easy argument to put after the weekend’s storms; luggage can be carried within reason; and sweat is not really a problem unless you are trying to train for competitions. Crucially, though, I suggested that you do not have to be a fundamentalist cyclist. If you have too much luggage or shopping, hop in your car or take a bus or taxi. Equally, if it is pouring with rain, give cycling a miss.
I was hoping to encourage just a few of the listeners to give cycling a try. For me there are so many advantages that I would not consider any other method of getting round London. It gets me there in a predictable amount of time – I have not excuse when I am late for a meeting – it saves me money and helps keep me fit. I can’t say any of these are altruistic and even if the bicycle were not the best alternative for the environment, I would tend to use it anyway (although as a young man I had a passion for medium size motorbikes).
The truth, though, is that I am an addict.
Even when I really do not feel like the effort, after the first mile or so, I begin to really enjoy it as my production of endorphins kicks in – let’s hope a few more people get that same addiction after my tour of the studios this morning.

Possibly the most difficult task of a journalist is to dig behind the self-interested positions of both sides in an argument and get the real story. There has been much hoo-ha over the partial closure of 40 ticket offices on the London Underground. Transport for London claim this is a sensible move given that more people use Oyster and there is less call on ticket office staff who, in any case, will be redeployed to stand on platforms or in ticket halls.
The unions say that this poses safety fears because ticket offices are the first point of call for any passenger needing help. Now that really does not ring true to me. Trying to get the attention of a staff member through that little window, when they may be serving someone else or doing some administrative task in the back is not easy. Or take my recent experience at Highbury & Islington when the ticket office closed in my face because a security guard was making a delivery.
But TfL's claim is also self-interested. Is it merely attempting to save money? There is a little irony here that in the same edition of the Standard which featured the ticket office closures, there was a long piece justifiably questioning the amount of money being paid to Bob Kiley, the former transport commissioner, for doing pretty much nothing at all. So on one page TfL is slagged off for wasting money, and on another for trying to save it.
On this one, I come down entirely on TfL's side. The Oyster card means that far fewer ticket office staff are needed and since the barrier is always staffed, ticket office closures allows TfL to put more people on the barriers. The unions, as they do so often, are guilty of self-interested whingeing and raising the old canard of safety fears really rankles.
I do, however, totally support the unions' attempts to keep ticket offices open at several SouthEastern stations where they are under threat because closure would leave them totally unstaffed, which clearly is unsatisfactory. Moreover, having ticket offices open reduces fare dodging and therefore largely pays for itself. In other words, just because there is self-interest does not negate the fact that there can be a good case.

Just received the press release from the Office of Rail Regulation about the safety statistics which are generally all improving. However, ORR cannot resist using emotional language which is wholly inappropriate for a regulator organisation by using the adverb 'sadly' when referring to the death of a passenger at the Grayrigg train accident in Cumbria.
Of course the death was sad but it was nothing to do with the ORR and therefore expressing regret or sadness is signing up to the emotional agenda set by the tabloids. Shit happens, as the expression goes, and the ORR's business is to record it dispassionately. Such use of language contributes to the idea that the railways are dangerous when, in fact, we all know they are an extremely safe form of transport.
It is the same sort of thing that leads to the overprotective attitude towards children that was expressed in the Children's Society report published earlier this week. People will get killed on the railways, just as children will very occasionally be abducted. However, that does not mean we should not use the railways, or that children should not be allowed out on their own until they are too old to drive.

I have just come back from St Petersburg where I gave a lecture and made it into a week's holiday. We travelled there and back via Helsinki, taking the daily Sibelius train run by Finnish railways. What a pleasure! It's not the fastest journey, as there are 20 minute stops at each of the border towns, and there were clearly some speed restrictions, but it was a beautiful journey, showing the contrast between the rather messy countryside of the former Soviet state and the neat forests and fields on the Finnish side. The train was modern and clean, and the staff very helpful.
The best part, however, was the visit to the dining car - not buffet, please note. This offers everything from a drink and those fresh looking sandwiches which the Scandinavians do so well, to a full breakfast or meal offered at any time. We both had the salmon and salad, which was delicious and copious, but I had been tempted by the meatballs and mash. Of course there is not a chef on board and the meals are precooked, but nevertheless they were far better than the kind of packaged and plastic fare generally available on British trains. Why, wondered my partner Deborah, could we not do it here? It was simple with friendly service and nothing special, but just terribly pleasant and well-conceived. And there was even proper cutlery and crockery.