For those new to CabbieBlog or readers who are slightly forgetful, on Saturdays I’m republishing posts, many going back over a decade. Some will still be very relevant while others have become dated over time. Just think of this post as your weekend paper supplement.

Exploding the legend (02.11.12)

Ask most children what 5th November is and they would tell you that it is Guy Fawkes night celebrating a night in 1605 when Catholics in England expecting the new Stuart King – James to be more tolerant of them had decided to kill him. Their hopes were dashed when he proved to be the opposite and ordered all Catholic priests to leave England.

This so angered some Catholics that they decided to remove James and put his daughter Elizabeth on the throne ensuring that she was a Catholic.

This led to a plot to assassinate the king of England, but as we shall see it would devastate a sizeable area of Westminster and also kill everyone sitting in the Houses of Parliament at the same time as James opened Parliament on 5th November 1605.

Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators had rented out a house next to the Houses of Parliament and managed to get 36 barrels of gunpowder into a cellar under the House of Lords.

For an unexplained reason, it was decided this year to search the cellars prior to the opening of Parliament and Guy Fawkes was caught red-handed.

In celebration of his survival, James ordered that the people of England should have a great bonfire on the night on 5th November. This fire was traditionally topped off with an effigy of the Pope rather than Guy Fawkes.

His place at the top of the fire came in later as did fireworks. The East Sussex county town of Lewes still has the pope alongside Guy Fawkes when it comes to the effigies being burned.

Many conspiracy theories surround the 5th November plot but the use of gunpowder is an intriguing one.

The government had a monopoly on gunpowder in this country and it was stored in places like the Tower of London. How did the conspirators get hold of 36 barrels of gunpowder without drawing attention to themselves?

How was the gunpowder moved across London from the Tower of London to Westminster (at least two miles distant) without anyone seeing it? The River Thames would not have been used as it could have led to the gunpowder becoming damp and useless. Thirty-six barrels would have been a sizeable quantity, estimated to be 2,500 kilograms, being moved without causing suspicion.

Experts from the Centre for Explosion Studies, at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth have estimated that Westminster Abbey would have been destroyed and the blast zone would have stretched as far as modern-day Downing Street.

They found that within a radius of about 40 metres, everything would have been razed to the ground. Within 110 metres, buildings would have been at least partially destroyed. And some windows would have been blown out even as far as 900 metres away.

In the 2005 ITV programme The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend, a full-size replica of the House of Lords was built and destroyed with barrels of gunpowder. The experiment demonstrated that the explosion if the gunpowder was in good order – and there is no reason to believe otherwise as Guy Fawkes was an explosives expert – would have killed all those in the building. The power of the explosion in the experiment was such that the 7-foot deep concrete walls (replicating how archives suggest the walls of the old House of Lords were constructed) were reduced to rubble. Measuring devices placed in the chamber to calculate the force of the blast were themselves destroyed by the explosion; the skull of the dummy representing King James, which had been placed on a throne inside the chamber surrounded by courtiers, peers and bishops, was found a considerable distance from the site. According to the findings of the programme, no one within 330 feet of the blast could have survived. The explosion would have been seen from miles away and heard from further away still. Even if only half of the gunpowder had gone off, everyone in the House of Lords and its environs would have been killed instantly.

The programme also disproved claims that some deterioration in the quality of the gunpowder would have prevented the explosion. A portion of deliberately deteriorated gunpowder, of such low quality as to make it unusable in firearms, when placed in a heap and ignited, still managed to create a large explosion. The impact of even deteriorated gunpowder would have been magnified by its containment in wooden barrels, compensating for the quality of the contents. The compression would have created a cannon effect, with the powder first blowing up from the top of the barrel before, a millisecond later, blowing out. Calculations showed that Fawkes, who was skilled in the use of gunpowder, had deployed double the amount needed.

As a curious footnote, some of the gunpowder guarded by Fawkes may have survived until recently. In March 2002 workers cataloguing archives of diarist John Evelyn at the British Library found a box containing a number of gunpowder samples, including a compressed bar with a note in Evelyn’s handwriting stating that it had belonged to Guy Fawkes. A further note, written in the 19th century, confirmed this provenance, but in 1952 the document acquired a new comment: “but there was none left”.

For those new to CabbieBlog or readers who are slightly forgetful, on Saturdays I’m republishing posts, many going back over a decade. Some will still be very relevant while others have become dated over time. Just think of this post as your weekend paper supplement.

Riding roughshod (30.10.12)

Redolent of a gentler age conjuring up images of Edwardians wearing tweed knickerbockers riding sit-up-and-beg bicycles might seem the perfect mode of transport around London.

With endorsements from our Mayor, although the sight of him precariously perched on his own bike, might give you cause to question his rationale. Seeing the personable Bradley Wiggins and the tearful Victoria Pendleton now appearing on BBC’s Strictly Come Dancing, you would think that journeying around our Capital was the perfect mode of transport undertaken by the most amenable of fellows.

All the publicity generated by City Hall would seem to endorse that notion and has encouraged an astonishing number to commute daily by bike. On a weekday evening, the Clapham Road bus lane is full of cyclists, prohibiting its use by the buses.

All well and good if the proper provision had been made for the tsunami of two wheels enveloping our streets. Alas, cyclists have become more vulnerable than ever.

A recent report by The Department of Transport has found that cyclist casualties rose by 10 per cent from 3,775 to 4,160 in the comparable first three months of this year, and cyclists incurring fatal or serious injuries rose by 13 per cent compared with the same period last year.

Accidents involving cycles and motor vehicles statistically blame seems to be split 50:50 with half of the accidents caused by cyclists, and considering how vulnerable you are now pedalling alone on London’s crowded streets only 1 in 100 bother to go on a training awareness course.

Local authorities have given scant attention to designing safe traffic-free lanes for two-wheels; usually painting the road blue seems to be the solution as if the colour was a cloak of safety, while in fact many cycle lanes are shared legally by motorists.

When the authorities have created safe cycle pathways many users ignore them. In Bloomsbury, enormous effort has been given to provide bike lanes only to be shunned by foolhardy cyclists.

Road users, it seems to me, cannot be expected to behave responsibly. All bikes should be required to be licensed and insured for 3rd party risks, with an identifying plate.

Any child on a bike or seated in one of those daft trailers should be required by law to wear a helmet.

Authorities should be mandated to provide safe bike lanes – Clapham Road for example could easily be provided with one such lane.

Fines should be imposed for motorists encroaching bike lanes, and more importantly, cyclists penalised if they refuse to use one if one is available.