Why has Transport for London not published a report that could save the lives of motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians? Kevin Ash investigates A major report on the effects of allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes provides overwhelming evidence of startling safety benefits to cyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorcyclists, but has been suppressed for political reasons. The long-awaited report, commissioned by Transport for London (TfL) and leaked to Telegraph Motoring, should have been published last October. After two years of prevarication, however, it remains a secret - despite showing clear and immediate safety benefits that would apply to the whole country. | |  | | Ride on: cycle use increased and safety improved in test areas where motorcyclists were allowed to travel in bus lanes |
TfL created three trial routes on which "P2Ws" (powered two-wheelers) were allowed to use bus lanes, although one, on the A13, was later discounted because the figures were distorted by major roadworks. Results from the other two, on the A23 in south London and the A41 in north London, show major safety benefits to all "VRUs" (Vulnerable Road Users - ie pedestrians, cyclists and scooter/motorcycle riders). According to the report's executive summary, there was a net reduction in collisions involving P2Ws and pedestrians (46 per cent) or cyclists (44 per cent), plus a 45 per cent reduction in P2W casualties. The evidence is especially clear after traffic migration is taken into account. The report shows that large numbers of motorcyclists changed their routes into London to take advantage of the trial bus lanes, with P2W traffic increasing on the experimental routes by between 25 and 40 per cent and falling by similar amounts on parallel roads that were monitored. Yet 24 months into the study period (extended from 18 to 36 months, with motorcycle groups claiming that this was sparked by the politically uncomfortable conclusions that were being reached), TfL changed its method of generating data to something called the Tanner Test. Even the report's own conclusion questions the validity of this test, which is generally considered to be an outdated statistical tool. It says: "What that [the Tanner] method cannot do is allow for any fluctuations in vehicle usage, and therefore cannot account for the impact of migration on the results to be used." Previously, the figures from the trial routes were being compared with parallel control routes where P2Ws were not allowed in bus lanes - and it's these more realistic, earlier figures that provide conclusive, positive evidence. The significance of this report reaches beyond London to the rest of the country, where many local authorities have been waiting for its conclusions before implementing their own policies. TfL is aware of this, as the report itself confirms: "Although the experiment was designed to generate evidence that is specifically related to... the capital, the results are likely to be of significance for all authorities with interests in improving road safety in relation to P2W use. Interest in this study has been expressed throughout the UK and internationally." Crucially, the report also shows that cyclists did not abandon bus lanes through fear of motorcycles - which has always been the most common reason cited for denying bus-lane access to P2Ws. Indeed, the experimental bus lanes recorded increased cycle usage (on top of a growth in cycle usage across London generally over the trial period) as the following extract indicates: "The evidence from casualty and collision data shows that cyclists' concerns that their casualty rates would rise, and use of their mode would decline, were unfounded in practice... the safety records for cyclists significantly improved where the measure was deployed. Results also show that cycling rose on trial sites - despite the presence of P2W riders in bus lanes and a significantly above-average rise in P2W use of trial routes. The report concludes from the evidence that conditions for cyclists did not significantly deteriorate." Similar conclusions were reached with regard to pedestrians: "The sum of casualty evidence shows that fears of significant rises in pedestrian injuries during the three-year trial were not well founded, with the overall figures demonstrating a significant net safety benefit to pedestrians when considering the collision rates." The report does not look into the reasons for these across-the-board safety improvements, but possibilities include the fact that P2Ws are much less likely to surprise jaywalking pedestrians or weaving cyclists when in bus lanes rather than when filtering between or past cars. And with large numbers of two-wheelers using bus lanes, a critical mass is reached where other road users expect them to be there and behave accordingly. So why hasn't TfL published the report and acted on its findings as soon as possible? Jeff Stone of the British Motorcyclists Federation (BMF) says: "This smacks of political interference from the highest level. The report is fantastic news - everyone gains and there is now no excuse for not opening all bus lanes around the country to P2Ws." A clue lies in the report's findings about the attitudes of other road users to the idea of motorcycles in bus lanes, with almost half the surveyed pedestrians and a large proportion of cyclists expressing negative views (although only 40 of 800 cyclists returned their forms, which is statistically insignificant compared with total cycle usage in London). So although the move would clearly prevent many injuries and save lives, it might be greeted with disapproval from a significant number of voters who harbour a prejudice against motorcycles. In its reaction to the report, TfL's priorities and attitudes have been laid bare. Just before we went to press, Transport for London responded with the following statement: "When an early draft of this report was put together we found that there were significant methodological issues as well as irregularities in the way data had been collected. This meant the validity of these early results was questionable. Further investigation of the data has now been carried out and the report is due to be published shortly. The Mayor will need to examine the full contents of the report and the trial results before taking a decision." |
Have your say
Comments
As a cyclist (and not a powered vehicle driver of any kind), I would be delighted to share bus lanes with motorbikes. The more obviously fast things in the bus lane, the less cars are likely to carve across it. Motorbikes present little risk to cyclists - their thinness allows them to easily overtake cyclists without leaving the lane (unlike busses, which are scary road-mates).
Posted by tom on March 5, 2008 6:09 PM
Report this comment
I'm surprised Ken Leninshit allows any motorised vehicles into his empire.
As for bus lanes and PTWs using them, surely we should be grateful for the fact that special traffic lanes are not restricted to bullock carts being driven by disabled lesbian marxist feminist muslim asylum seekers.
Who hate the west.
And men.
Posted by paul atherton on February 20, 2008 6:49 PM
Report this comment
I ride to work on a route that includes Jamaica Road and I dip in and out of the bus lanes because everyone else seems to do it and it causes no bother. I always give bicycle riders space, and don't obstruct them. However, then you see them running red lights willy-nilly. I think it's fair enough at times but they can't take a holier-than-thou stance when it comes to road etiquette. Letting motorcycles into bus lanes makes sense; you only have to look how clear the bus lanes are and how rammed the rest of the road is with traffic.
Posted by mandingo on February 19, 2008 3:42 PM
Report this comment
The real reason they cannot allow motorcycles into bus lanes is the APNR computer system that sends out fines generated from Bus-lane cameras is rubbish (what, a government I.T. system is rubbish? Never!) It has a simple list of number plates that are public service vehicles and sends out fines for anything not on its list – they would have to either upload all two wheelers from the main DVLA database or interface the system to the said DVLA database in order to distinguish who should and should not be fined. Simple for someone who knows what they're doing – but we've got a Labour government and you could never accuse them of knowing what they're doing. Joined up? ******-up more like! I'm surprised nobody has thought of cloning bus number-plates – unless a copper on foot nicks you for using the bus lane, you'll never get caught!
Posted by Steve Lee, London on February 18, 2008 11:49 PM
Report this comment
As a car driver I’d love to see motorcyclists in the Bus lane as they are less likely to hit my wing mirror.
As a motorcyclist I’d love to use the bus lane as I don’t have to risk filtering close to cars and having one crash into me. I can also see and be seen far more easily.
As a cyclist I couldn’t care less, I feel less threatened by motorcyclists then any other road users. (maybe that’s because I’m a motorcyclist as well ?)
As a pedestrian I’d like motorcyclists in the bus lane as they will be easier to see so less likely to accidentally step in front of one.
Unfortunately many cyclists, in London especially, seem to feel that they own the roads. I’ve never been nearly run over by anything running a red light except cyclists, and that happens an average of 5 times a week. Cyclists have no insurance so if they damage your car it doesn’t affect their wallet, so many take risks they wouldn’t otherwise take. And how many times have you had to brake hard to avoid a bus that just swerved to avoid a cyclist suddenly appearing in a bus lane ?
In my opinion I can’t see a single bad thing in letting motorcycles into bus lanes, it’s the rouge cyclists that need clamping down on – there’s far more dangerous cyclists then dangerous motorcyclists on London’s roads.
Posted by brian on February 14, 2008 11:31 PM
Report this comment
Seems to me a little odd that some cyclists are happy to share a lane with a london bus that presumably weighs in at 5 tons or so and can travel at the speed limit (if not, then presumably faster than most cycles). Yet are in some kind of mortal fear of a vehicle that takes up a 3rd of the width of the lane and weighs about an eighth of a ton.
Posted by Martin on February 12, 2008 1:11 PM
Report this comment
Riding a cycle in Tokyo is a pleasure as there are many cycle lanes marked on the pavements and also dedicated pedestrian/cycle routes independent of roads including alongside rivers and canals. Otherwise one can also legally cycle on pavements. Why are we years behind with regard to provision of adequate public transport and facilities for non-powered transport?
Posted by Tim Clarke on February 12, 2008 9:35 AM
Report this comment
Some of you so called motorists make me sick. The study shows what most 'bikers' already know, and motorists have little concept of. Space around you saves your life. Close the gap in and you are more likely to become involved in an RTI. It would be a good thing for all car drivers to do 2 years on a bike before being allowed to drive a car. You'd learn road craft and a bit of common road sense. Nope, you'll stick with your biased attitude and taste bile at the ability of a hate figure to get in front of you in your metal box.
You'd rather see motorcyclists die in the gutter than admit you are wrong.
Your attitude is worse than white segregation policy against the Blacks in the US.
In fact the mentality is the same.
Posted by GAC on February 9, 2008 6:22 PM
Report this comment
If it's any consolation, in Spain they don't even bother rehashing the data to fit their own predrawn lines. In Barcelona a few months ago, exactly the same law was approved by overwhelming majority in the city council after a similar study indicated substantial safety gains. In fairness, I think the potential gains in Barcelona are possibly greater because of the higher pedestrian/cycle/motorbike population.
However one political party, the "Izquierda Republicana" hold the balance of power at regional level, and threatened to pull out of the coalition if the city law was ever inacted. So it wasn't.
The reason? They are sworn to oppose, no matter what, all the measures proposed by their political opposites (in this case, the equivalent of the Christian Democrats, and in fact the single most voted party).
There's democracy in action for you.
Posted by Robin on February 7, 2008 3:55 PM
Report this comment
"The Mayor will need to examine the full contents of the report and the trial results before taking a decision." means if it meets his approval otherwise it would be censored and not made public?
Are we now living in a police state?
Posted by whocares on February 6, 2008 3:42 PM
Report this comment
Speaking as both a cyclist and a motorcyclist, who has riden both in peak time London traffic, I can safely say that some of the worst riding I have seen consistently comes from the pedal variety! I do undersatnd that some cyclists may find motorbikes intimidating - but then surely a large bus would be even more so! Those who are not confident to share a lane with other vehicles should maybe consider taking further training or finding a different form of transport.
I have never encountered problems with P2W's using bus lanes, and I am certain that it is far safer for all concerned that the motorcycles are clearly visible in a relatively uncrowded lane, as opposed to filtering between cars.
Posted by Phillip Butler on February 4, 2008 4:48 PM
Report this comment
"They have excluded the results of the A13 study because that showed a major impact on cycle use - a fall of over 80%.........
forcing cyclists out of it."
I know that piece of road it is a seriously scarey stretch of multi-lane carriageway even on a PTW. It also is a main route to and from the Blackwall tunnels, which push bikes cannot use additionall a great deal of money and effort has been spent over the pastt 7 years changing the road to make it a fast urban trunk route, while marking out a cycle lane on the pavements alongside the A13 all the way to Dagnham. Perhaps that is where the cyclists have transferred to ?
Posted by Russ on February 2, 2008 9:44 PM
Report this comment
"This report is nonsense and seriously understates the effect and danger of more motorcycles in bus lanes. They have excluded the results of the A13 study because that showed a major impact on cycle use - a fall of over 80%".
I know that patch of the A13, it is a multi-carriage way piece of road, leading into the Junctions from the Blackwall Tunnels where push bikes can't go and onto fast (40mph) urban dual carriage way. It is a seriously scarey piece of road, even on a P2W , and is quite a way out from the centre of London. It would certainly represent a very long commute for a push bike. I also think that the council has also provided a cycle lane on the pavement for that section of the bus lane and certainly along much of the A13 down to Dagenham. Perhaps the missing 80% took the decison to use that instead
Posted by Young Dai on February 2, 2008 12:34 AM
Report this comment
This is a ‘no-brainer’. Anybody who rides a motorbike / scooter in heavy traffic conditions knows how dangerous filtering through the traffic can be, both for them and for pedestrians. Other road users just don’t expect you to be there so they just walk out, pull out or open their car door in front of you.
Everybody expects traffic to be in the bus lane so they check first. It doesn’t need any kind of study to prove this, we all know it already. Are cyclists really suggesting that motorbikes are more of a risk to them than a 5 tonne bus or fast moving taxi?
Wherever motorbikes have been allowed in the bus lanes it has been a success, Bristol is proof of this.
Posted by Richard Gould on February 1, 2008 1:06 PM
Report this comment
Mutley is correct. Charlie Lloyd's interests could hardly be more vested.
Posted by Dan on February 1, 2008 12:33 PM
Report this comment
The report probably does not have enough data to make any reasonable conclusions. P2Ws are scary to cyclists, especially at the speeds that all p2ws reach when in bus lanes, illegally in bus lanes. Also at ASL, advanced stop lines, for cyclists exclusive use and written in the road traffic act, p2w always stop in the ASL or in front of the 2nd stop line. This is the same as going through a red light and the riders should be punished. The comments from cyclists who think that p2w in bus lanes would be fine in the peak hours are misguided and obviously have not experienced london traffic at its worse.
Posted by RR on February 1, 2008 12:11 PM
Report this comment
Why are cyclists safer when P2Ws are using buslanes?
The drivers of large vehicles turning left, and pedestrians and other cyclists are forced to take more care as they are aware the P2Ws are moving faster than cyclists and can not therefore just be pushed aside.
It all makes perfect sense if the risks are greater, then people take more care.
Posted by Ron C on February 1, 2008 12:01 PM
Report this comment
As long as militant cyclists continue to spout conjecture about P2W "speeding" in bus lanes, this lobby's objection will stand. A report full of data about the safety of allowing P2W to use bus lanes supressed because of someone's opinion riding a penny farthing with no speedometer?
Posted by Michael on January 31, 2008 12:08 PM
Report this comment
Charlie Lloyd's comments are nothing short of disgraceful.
Click on his name and see where the link leads to - I don't think I need to say anything else.
Posted by Mutley on January 31, 2008 11:59 AM
Report this comment
This report is nonsense and seriously understates the effect and danger of more motorcycles in bus lanes. They have excluded the results of the A13 study because that showed a major impact on cycle use - a fall of over 80%.
It is hard to get valid statistics because it is mainly when the main lanes get blocked that m/cs switch to the bus lane. The analysis needs to concentrate on the congested times and sections of road. What happenend on the A13 was that extra congestion from road works meant that 75% of m/cs moved into the cycle lane, forcing cyclists out of it. This data comes from the first statistical study of the trials, a study that was suppressed to please the motorcycle lobby. The study also showed motorcycles exceeding the the speed limit by an average of 20% on these routes.
Other research has shown motorcycles to be five times more likely to kill or injure pedestrians and cyclists than are cars. We cannot afford to entice more motorcycles into London or other cities by allowing them into bus lanes.
Posted by Charlie Lloyd on January 30, 2008 3:45 PM
Report this comment
I cannot see that allowing m/cycles in bus lanes, can be anything than beneficial. Instead of us weaving in and out of traffic and 'pinching' a bit of bus lane here and there, upsetting drivers. we could ride safely in the lane, and as we travel at the same speed as buses, wouldn,t cause them any delays ( unlike bicycles )
Posted by peter crabb on January 30, 2008 12:04 PM
Report this comment
If the report [on the use of bus lanes by P2W] clearly demonstrates that there is a significant safety advantage in allowing P2W to use bus lanes then the fiddling of figures to discredit the results or the suppression of the report for political reasons borders on the criminally negligent. If pedestrians and cyclists don't like the idea that sharing bus lanes with P2W might actually stop people being killed or seriously injured maybe they should stop being quite so selfrighteous take a long hard look at themselves and think about how car drivers reacted to the seat belt law in the early 1980's. P2W riders are the most vulnerable road users being more likely to be in a fatal accident then cyclist and pedestrians. This report needs to be accurate when it's released not politically correct.
Posted by Dave Glanville on January 30, 2008 11:07 AM
Report this comment
I just got 5 bus lane tickets from lambeth council and i am p*****d!!!
Posted by ril on January 29, 2008 11:16 PM
Report this comment
Please don't equate the views of "The Cycling Lobby" with those of the majority of ordinary cyclists. Most non-militant cyclists are quite happy to share bus lanes with motorbikes as there's plenty of space in a bus lane for a motorbike to overtake a bicycle without risk to either party. The things which fill me with dread as a cyclist are sharing pavements with unpredicatble pedestrians (to the extent that I prefer to ride in the road) and the fools who jump lights, ride with no lights and no reflective high visibility clothing at night.
Posted by Richard Lawson on January 29, 2008 2:11 PM
Report this comment
I guess we just found the price of a life... this sickens me and I am glad I no longer work and commute into central London by motorbike:(
Posted by Andrei on January 29, 2008 7:53 AM
Report this comment
As a London resident who cycles to work 2-3 times a week and rides a scooter the other days, I would fully endorse allowing P2Ws into bus lanes. The fact is that the most dangerous scooters and bikers are already using the bus lanes because they've worked out where the traffic cameras are or their bike's not registered and they don't care.
There are irresponsible cyclists who weave in and out of traffic and have never heard of a lifesaver. There are irresponsible bikers who go through congestion far too fast when they can't see properly. There are irresponsible pedestrians who wander through traffic without paying attention while on their phones or ipods. And there are irresponsible drivers who don't appear to know how to use their mirrors or indicators. Putting all the 2-wheels in one lane would massively increase their visibility and the awareness of other road users.
Posted by Simon Carter on January 28, 2008 10:21 PM
Report this comment
If anyone has actually ridden a bicycle in London will know, motorbikes already use the bus lanes and it speeds either far in excess of the limit or far in excess of other traffic around them. That is the danger. And by the way cyclists do pay for the roads in London, if they live there, through council tax.
Posted by RR on January 28, 2008 4:31 PM
Report this comment
The Bristol conurbation area (Bristol, South Glous, NE Somerset & Bath) already allows the use of motorcycles and pushbikes in bus lanes. As an occasional cyclist and weekend biker (I walk to work) this is the fantastic use of the road. It separates the hazards and allows those using the most environmentally friendly modes of traffic the use of clear lanes without having to weave in and out of queues of traffic annoying drivers.
Posted by boneidlegit on January 28, 2008 12:32 PM
Report this comment
TFL says :"When an early draft of this report was put together we found that there were significant methodological issues as well as irregularities in the way data had been collected. This meant the validity of these early results was questionable."
i.e they did not conform with their view? They were the ones who commissioned the survey. How much more money will they waste until they find a survey that supports their own biases?
Posted by RB on January 28, 2008 9:49 AM
Report this comment
There is a common thread to all "consultations" and surveys run by TfL / Ken Livingstone: When the answer does not suit you, move the goalposts until it does.
Posted by Bryan Armstrong on January 28, 2008 9:43 AM
Report this comment
Honestly, if Ken turns down the use of bus lanes by motorcycles, my vote will be going elsewhere. The opinion of cyclists and pedestrians is somehow irrelevant when the use of bus lanes by motorcyclists would be saving a significant number of lives, without compromising those of other parties. This is a road safety issue, not a political one.
Posted by Andrew Hill on January 28, 2008 9:11 AM
Report this comment
This should go one stage further, bicycles should be allowed on the pavements. The law forcing bikes onto the road was passed in 1887, when there were no cars and they shared the road with horses and a few horse drawn vehicles, it was not envisaged that they would share the road with millions of cars, vans, lorries and trucks. In reality bikes have more in common with pedestrians, and, with appropriate care on both sides, can and frequently do share the same space. For cycling at speed the road is, unfortunately, better, but for huge numbers of cyclists the pavement will be more appropriate, without unduly inconveniencing pedestrians, especially since many pavements are often empty. Once again, pedestrians will object but I am convinced that their fears are groundless. TfL refuses to even think about this idea.
Posted by Adam Osen on January 28, 2008 8:13 AM
Report this comment
If you don't like the results, then you change the method of producing the results until they match with what you desire. This country may as well be a dictatorship! There's no way uncle ken will approve something which he vehemently despises on a personal level - personal motorised transport within London.
Posted by dave on January 28, 2008 12:50 AM
Report this comment
I'm not at all surprised. TfL make decisions about what they want and ignore all other opinions, statistics or information if it conflicts with their preconceptions. Transport is a major issue in London, TfL will do nothing to improve it Over the years I have contacted them about cycling (I cycled into London for six years) and traffic lights (along the lines of the Newsnight article a couple of weeks ago) They fobbed me off with the first excuses that came into their heads and refused to enter into further discussion.
Posted by Adam Osen on January 27, 2008 11:36 PM
Report this comment
If this report is correct everyone would gain from two wheelers being alowed to use bus lanes and not just in london.
Posted by Denis on January 27, 2008 6:12 PM
Report this comment
The views of cyclists? Those freeloaders? What about the view of motorists and motorcyclists (who pay fuel duty and road taxes) re cyclists?
Posted by Roland on January 27, 2008 6:04 PM
Report this comment
So London's pedestrians and 2 wheeled users of all varieties are dying in the name of Transport for London's political agenda!
What a noble thing, to die for Ken's anti-motoring bigotry.
Posted by Andy Hope on January 27, 2008 12:15 PM
Report this comment
Prime example of squandering money on another study which, if it reaches the wrong conclusions, will be ignored. Livingstone and TFL are anti any motorised form of private transport and they only want surveys that will confirm their prejudices. Making life easier for any motorist is a non starter with them. THey are supposed to be there to assist and facillitate but all they do is hinder, obstruct and penalise.
Posted by Simon on January 27, 2008 7:35 AM
Report this comment
In Bristol motorcyclists have been using bus lanes for years and it seems to be very successful. I have never heard any complaints.
Posted by Robert Heath on January 26, 2008 8:18 PM
Report this comment
Once again a Government agency is suppressing positive news regarding motorcycles.We constantly have cycling groups complaining about other road users.They forget to mention that if there were no roads they would have nothing to ride on,also they;do not have insurance,training,MOT's,obey trffic signals.Ride the wrong way on one way streets,ride on the pavement,ride two abreast causing an obstruction [cycling clubs are the worst offenders]It is time that this political correctness and fear of upsetting them because they are environmentally friendly should end.
Posted by Ian Cluny on January 26, 2008 3:01 PM
Report this comment
It is almost certain that the final version of this report will be heavily doctored to suit the views of Ken and his acolytes who are in thrall to the cycling lobby, a myopic group dogmatically opposed to allowing scooters and motorbikes into bus lanes. Their supporters will do their utmost to suppress any evidence of benefits to cyclists and others arising from these trials. The authors of the report have already claimed that a member of Ken's team made them rewrite their findings to suppress evidence of safety gains (Evening Standard, 25/01/08).
If ever there was a more blatant example of the moral corruption at the heart of the present Mayor's administration, I've yet to hear of it.
Posted by Henry Zarb on January 26, 2008 9:55 AM
Report this comment
There is already widespread mis-use of bus lanes by motorcyclists (e.g. Jamaica Road, SE16). There is a major risk for cyclists in that these motorcycles are inclined to drive at or even above the speed limit - much faster than cyclists and the traffic in the other lane alongside.
Posted by Peter on January 26, 2008 8:59 AM
Report this comment
Humphrey Appleby couldn't have put it better.
Posted by ed on January 26, 2008 4:15 AM
Report this comment
"[T]wo years of prevarication" -- really? They've been lying about it for two years?
Posted by Proscrastinates, shoots and leaves on January 25, 2008 6:42 PM
Report this comment
It comes as no surprise to motorcyclists that measures such as allowing motorcycles into bus lane should reduce accidents. Any measure which improves visability both of motorcycles to other road users and that of pedestrians and cyclists to riders has to reduce the potential for collisions by increasing reaction times and allowing effective collision avoidance measures to be taken. The poor mutual visabilty that is too often the case when motorcycles are forced into heavily congeted urban traffic increases the risk not only to motorcyclists from other traffic, but also the risks of pedestrians and cyclists who may not detect bikes or assume that all traffic is at a stanstill.
That the reports findings have been surpressed, has less to do with dubious methodology and rather more to do with an unwillingness to ofend a small but vociferous section of the cycling community who appear to believe that the roads should be their sole preserve and that their safety or perceptions of it are paramount above all other road users.
This selfish attitude must be discounted if the safety of all vulnerable road usrs, including pedestrians, is to be enhanced equaly and the maximum congestion reduction that cycling and motorcycling can contribute to is acheived.
Posted by Steve Wykes on January 25, 2008 6:26 PM
Report this comment
Post a comment
How you can limit inflation's effect on your pocket. |  | Actress Wendy Craig recounts her best and worst holidays. | | Author Lauren Child talks about helping street children. | | Edward Sheriff Curtis's photos are still powerful today. |
