Strange angle on road deaths

In the news today is a report showing that children in deprived areas are four times more likely to die in road accidents than those in wealthier locations, and that therefore deprived areas should get priority in funding for speed bumps, cameras etc.

On the face of it that sounds fair enough, but actually it is deeply confused and offensive. Funding for traffic calming should go to where it has the greatest benefit. If this correlates with poverty, then more of it will go to poor areas, as it should. But where there are accident hotspots in prosperous areas these should be dealt with on an equal basis.

The idea that poor areas should get priority just because poverty correlates with risk, is a bit like saying you should hire tall people when you want smart employees because height correlates with intelligence. (You shouldn't, you should test your applicants' intelligence.)

The suggestion here is that the life of a richer child is worth less than the life of a poor child, and that is grossly offensive. The implication is that reducing child deaths is not the policy goal, but rather equalising child deaths across the social divide, as if this were a front in the class war.

A tragic death in the family

Yesterday I learned of the death of my cousin, Jono Parr, a young man, killed by a lorry while cycling to work.

I'm not going to talk at any length about how I feel - this is a public blog, and that is not the sort of thing I do. But I am deeply shocked and saddened, and outraged at the manner of this death. However I am moved to say something about the risks of cycling.

I used to cycle everywhere and I shudder to think of some of the risks I took and near misses I had. After moving to Sheffield and spending a couple of years panting and sweating my way up the hills, I decided I need some assistance and switched to a motorbike. After another near miss or two and lots of freezing weather, I went for the kind of motorbike with 4 wheels and an enclosed cab.

This was all despite being in some ways a fairly militant environmentalist. Today the traffic is worse, cars are constantly weaving around to straddle speed cushions, cycle lanes of 18 inches have been painted at the side of roads to narrow too fit 2 cars and 2 bicycles. I would not consider cycling on these roads. I would rather grow fat. But we hear the message: leave the car at home - you ought to cycle. My reaction: Get a sense of proportion.

Don't get me wrong. If you want to cycle, if you enjoy it, if you need the exercise, if it is the only practical way to get around, if the risks are minimised, then go for it. (And I don't know what Jono's reasons were for cycling.) But don't tell me that it is morally better. It is morally better not to get killed by a lorry.

Environmentalism is stuck in this rut of asking people to make sacrifices. As if somehow environmental problems were insoluble without some great moral reawakening. But this is rubbish - they are just practical problems. You will no more save the planet by cycling or recycling than you will abolish the national debt by donating your share of it to the treasury. Big practical problems need big solutions, involving money, technology, and political will.

And transport related risks are a huge practical problem, not just for cyclists; as are congestion and access to transport. I think one proportionate step would be to remove lorries from the roads during rush hours. Yes, it would push haulage costs up a certain amount, but, frankly, haulage is dirt cheap. And it would ease congestion and improve safety for millions of commuters, cars, bikes and buses. Please sign the petition:

petitions.pm.gov.uk/Lorries/

Let's live for ever

Start the week starred the well known somewhat cranky gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who predicts that some people alive today will live to the age of 1000 thanks to rejuvenation technology. I glanced at some of de Grey's writing about a year ago and concluded that he was exaggerating the potential somewhat.

However the most interesting response to de Grey is opposition. Other panellists responded "why should we want to live to 200", "what is wrong with frailty?" and talked about overpopulation. I think these responses - which I shared the first time I considered this issue - are not only missing the point but are frightening. All medical technologies could be similarly doubted, and it would be hideous to do so. What de Grey anticipates are medical technologies so effective they make our present technology seem like leeches and a hole in the head. We are largely resigned to dying in our first century, this is better than spending a life in fear of death. But it doesn't mean that death in the our first century is desirable.

If you don't want to live to 200, you can take the way out any time you choose. We find suicide terrible, but perhaps we should find natural death terrible, and respect the chosen death after a long life, celebrating the fact that nature did not intervene sooner.

But what about overpopulation? What about healthcare, including the costs of and access to longevity technology? What about pensions? These will be significant challenges, but not so significant I think that we should seek to kill everybody off at the age of 80 by suppressing the technology.

Longevity will harm annuity returns. People will have to work longer, and probably draw down their pension funds rather than buy annuities. This will happen anyway, it is just a matter of degree. But the drop in annuity returns will come before the technology because the market will see it coming.

Access to healthcare? Doubtless the treatments will be expensive. Again, this is a problem we have already. There is an insatiable demand for healthcare and a limited budget. However reformed and well funded a NHS is, there will always be good treatments it cannot afford. But generally the NHS can afford them eventually. So what is new?

Overpopulation? It seems misanthropic even to ask the question. The population booms that have occurred in each country roughly around the time of industrialisation result not from the fact that people started breeding like rabbits - they always had - but from the fact that they stopped dying like flies. Birthrates would eventually adjust to restore balance. We are still dying like flies, just not as infants any more. We should expect significant longevity gains to result in another temporary population boom. Like industrialisation, a permanent benefit for a temporary cost.

And we see this misanthropy already when people talk about the 'problem' of there being a large number of pensioners. The correct word is 'triumph'.

These are significant challenges, for sure. But opposing the technology is the moral equivalent to shooting pensioners, or bombing the ballroom at Blackpool Tower. De Grey may be optimistic, but these questions will arise one day. Let's welcome them when they do.