Last week, smog was rolling (or wafting) its way across the UK, mostly concentrated in the South-east of England. DEFRA, the government body for the environment, has indicated that a variety of factors are behind it, such as industrial emissions, car pollution, and, somewhat bizarrely, dust blown across Europe from the Sahara Desert.
The above image shows the air quality across the UK, with the purple areas indicating the highest level of air pollution on the scale. Credit – DEFRA.Daily Air Quality Index
In the areas that are most severely hit, the government has been issuing warnings to stay indoors. Government advisors have announced that school-children should be kept indoors during their break to reduce the likelihood of developing lung disease. Prime Minister Cameron followed his own advice, and did not take his usual morning run.
The true nature of the smog is somewhat contested, however. Prime Minister Cameron called it a “naturally occurring weather phenomenon” during an interview on BBC Breakfast, in what some might deem to be a very selective interpretation of the facts. There is a grain of truth in there – some of the smog is caused by dust blown across Europe, facilitated by dry weather and a gentle easterly wind. However, to ignore that sizeable contribution to this smog made by our own domestic pollutants is entirely disingenuous.
In February of this year, the European Commission launched legal proceedings against the UK for our failure to reduce “excessive” levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions from traffic. In their statement, they noted that “Nitrogen dioxide is the main pre-cursor for ground-level ozone causing major respiratory problems and leading to premature death. City-dwellers are particularly exposed, as most nitrogen dioxide originates in traffic fumes”
The level to which our health, our environment and our freedom of movement is being compromised is unacceptable.
The EU Environment Commissioner, Janez Potočnik, commented that “poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents. It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year".
Keith Taylor, a Green MEP, notes that in the last 10 years nearly 300,000 people have died because of air pollution in the UK. Currently, a government helpline is advising for "everyone to avoid physical exertion" in areas that are particularly hard hit by the smog. The British Lung Foundation has also urged people who cycle to work to avoid going out at rush hour.
Governments of countries such as France and China recognise that vehicle emissions play a large contributory role in these toxic emissions, and take action accordingly. For example, in March, 700 Parisian police officers ran nearly 180 control points around the region, allowing only odd numbered vehicles on the road. They also made public transport free for a period, hoping to encourage people to leave their cars at home. Within a day, pollution levels had dropped back in to ‘safe’ levels, and the situation returned to normal.
The UK government will, to an extent, acknowledge that there is a severe problem. They will also, to an extent, advise us to take action to avoid the problem, in the short term. But when it comes to addressing the root cause of the problem – pollution – at best they remain static, and at worse, continue to make choices which exacerbate the problem. But there is a simple and long term course of action available for any government that wishes to lessen pollution, and that solution is to promote cycling.
Successive governments have talked a good game when it comes to cycling. The health benefits are clear. There is a strong economic argument for encouraging cycling. The environmental case, given the dire state of our air cleanliness, should speak for itself. Yet cycling uptake levels remain, a few localised cases aside, stagnant, and now, because of this pollution, cyclists are officially advised to avoid going out!
Surely instead of drastic, short term measures, the government should be prioritising any and all courses of actions which promote active travel? The government should be energetic in their promotion of alternatives to pollutant emitting vehicular travel. It should do more than pay lip service to the value in advancing active travel. It should be fully committed to breaking down the barriers to cycling.
Consider the findings of this study by Thornton et al (2010) for the Department for Transport. They found that 92% of respondents had learned to cycle and that 90% were physically able to, however only 5% used a bicycle as a main method of transport. In addition, a majority of respondents disagree with the statement saying ‘"I'm not the kind of person who rides a bicycle”. Furthermore, when presented with the statement "it's too dangerous for me to cycle on the roads", almost two thirds agreed, with only 25% disagreeing. Almost a half of the respondents said that they simply will not cycle on roads.
These findings are consistent with other similar lines of enquiry – fear of traffic is a huge barrier to cycling. The Road Share campaign seeks to address this barrier by encouraging safer and more responsible behaviour from all road users. Presumed liability has been a success in other countries, and if enacted here, we hope that this will in turn enable cyclists to feel safer whilst using our road network and successfully boost the level of cycling throughout the country.
Help us achieve this by signing our petition and lending us your support.