Vijf en dertig jaar wonen in Amsterdam West hebben mij genoeg voorbeelden laten zien van klunzig bestuur. De stad begon door te decentraliseren. De projectgroep Kinkerbuurt/Oud-West nam over onder de bezielende leiding van Henk van Veldhuizen. Toen moesten de diensten rampzalig versplinterd worden, zoals Bouw- en Woningtoezicht.
Intussen kreeg elke stadsdeeltje een eigen bestuur om besluiten te nemen en de concurrentie aangaan met andere stadsdeeltjes. Wethouder Pierre Wimmers had het briljante idee om Oudwest vol te plempen met grote draaiende reclameborden - Mupi's - in ruil voor twee openbare wc's. Hij vergat daarbij om het bestuur in te lichten dat deze deal meer dan 30.000 gulden waard was (bijna tien keer zoveel zelfs) en moest in 1996 het veld ruimen. Gelukkig zijn veel van de Mupi's verdwenen, maar men beseft nog steeds niet dat onze openbare ruimte volplempen nog steeds geen levendigheid in de buurt brengt.
Later zijn de stadsdeeltjes opgenomen in nog grotere stadsdelen waardoor wij verder moeten fietsen om een rijbewijs of paspoort te halen. En nu zijn de stadsdelen vervangen door bestuurscommissies. What's in a name?
Het lijkt soms alsof onze regenten steeds alles willen veranderen om mensen in de war te brengen. Gemeente wordt stadsdelen en dan bestuurscommissies. Een bouwvergunning wordt een omgevingsvergunning, enzovoort.
Intussen zou het steeds makkelijker moeten zijn om burgers op de hoogte te houden van wat er gaande is bij ons in de buurt... maar niets lijkt minder waar. Als het uitkomt zijn de regenten bereid om hoog van de toren te blazen. Zo ook eind 2012 toen Baveko kwam met een onzinnige plan om kiosken te bouwen. Het stadsdeel wil al te graag meegenieten van de loftrompet van "de gezonde stad", maar burgers informeren? Ho maar. Geen informatie naar de burger, niet eens in de wekelijkse nieuwsbrief.
In januari had het stadsdeel ons moeten laten weten hoe het zit met onze beroep tegen de kiosken in West. Niets gehoord, dus uiteindelijk in gebreke gesteld. Nog steeds niets gehoor den nu wordt het pas maart. De stadsdelen waren al failliet. dat wordt nu voor de zoveelste keer bewezen.
Friday, 20 February 2015
Tuesday, 3 February 2015
Helmets don't make cycling safer
Now the West-Midlands Police is trying to scare people off bikes again by using old and discredited arguments. The facts are simple. Helmets may very occasionally save a life - although bike helmets are probably most effective for accidents involving pedestrians and certainly not cars. Now the police are scaring people into wearing them while that scares many more people off the roads. And that costs a lot more lives (because the physical exertion of cycling is much healthier than being a couch/car potato).
My mate Bez added a relevant cartoon to illustrate the point.
And when it comes to arguments against helmets, let's start with the New York Times:
“Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn't justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits,” says Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney.
Ben Goldacre has subjected the issue to a more scientific treatise in the BMJ:
"The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk."
Then of course we come to the succinct arguments of Chris Boardman and Transport Minister Norman Baker on the BBC. "A lot of people would not cycle if they were required to wear a helmet."
Yet the police still seems to want to apply anecdotal argumentation - that one person whose skull survives thanks to a helmet justifies scaring thousands off bikes by insisting on their use. What if they're wrong?
In this case the police are not only convinced they're right, they are also aware of the number of people who would argue with them on that - and choose to ignore them in advance. "We were lambasted by a few, and again we expected the usual social media participants to come out to play."
I for one shall continue to lambast @trafficWMP for their short-sighted position.
My mate Bez added a relevant cartoon to illustrate the point.
And when it comes to arguments against helmets, let's start with the New York Times:
“Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn't justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits,” says Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney.
Ben Goldacre has subjected the issue to a more scientific treatise in the BMJ:
"The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk."
Then of course we come to the succinct arguments of Chris Boardman and Transport Minister Norman Baker on the BBC. "A lot of people would not cycle if they were required to wear a helmet."
Yet the police still seems to want to apply anecdotal argumentation - that one person whose skull survives thanks to a helmet justifies scaring thousands off bikes by insisting on their use. What if they're wrong?
In this case the police are not only convinced they're right, they are also aware of the number of people who would argue with them on that - and choose to ignore them in advance. "We were lambasted by a few, and again we expected the usual social media participants to come out to play."
I for one shall continue to lambast @trafficWMP for their short-sighted position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)