Know your enemies, know your limits: cyclists and HGVs in London

Cycling in London is not a dangerous activity. Contrary to popular belief not all drivers are trying to run us off the road, and not all cyclists are jumping red lights, mowing down pedestrians and flicking the finger at driver. As I’ve discussed here before, cycling is as safe as walking in Central London – I came to this conclusion using data that the media was using to portray riding a bike as being akin to chewing depleted plutonium...

But , as in everything in life, there are dangers involved in cycling, and we should do our best to address the source of these dangers and limit our exposure to risk – especially if that risk is avoidable. In my opinion, the biggest threat we face on the road are not car drivers but Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). In 2004 twenty two cyclists were killed in the UK in collisions with HGVs. Last year alone in London, of the 13 cyclists who died on our roads nine were killed by HGVs – of those nine, eight were women. In total, HGVs account for about 45% of all London cyclist’s death, but account for just 5% of traffic. The British Medical Journal, in their 1994 paper ‘Death of Cyclists in London’ said “the risk of heavy goods vehicles being involved in accidents in which cyclists die in inner London can be estimated at five times that of buses, 14 times that of light goods vehicles, and 30 times that of cars.” Clearly, this is not acceptable. Cyclists; know your enemies.

I thought it was common knowledge amongst all London cyclists that to ride down the inside of an HGV (or a large truck or bus for that matter) is an invitation for disaster, but last week alone I saw two cyclists doing just that. Cyclists are vocal and organised in calling for their full rights on the road, and the first to point out poor driving by others - and rightly so - and yet as the stakeholders who will always invariably come off worse in any road traffic accident, we must be pro-active in recognising that our own behaviour is the first line of defence we have with which to protect ourselves. Cyclists; know your limits.

We can spend thousands of pounds on driver training and complementary safety measures on our roads, but if cyclists put themselves willingly in positions of danger, there’s very little that anyone can do about it. We need to look out for ourselves, before we ask others to look out for us.

This video from the Metropolitan Police, was produced in association with Transport for London as part of their ‘Exchanging Places’ program which gave cyclists the opportunity to sit in an articulated lorry cab and see the driver’s point of view.  Whilst a little dry, I think this video is excellent in demonstrating what the lorry driver can't see – it’s worth noting that the lorry used in the film has every conceivable type of mirror attached – far more than many HGVs (especially those operated by smaller operators) actually do.

Of course, I am absolutely against any idea of blaming the victim – many of the cyclists who have died as a consequence of HGV collisions have been accomplished cyclists acting within the law or following the cycle paths put down on the road for them (many left curb approaches to Advanced Stop Lines encourage riders to go up the inside of traffic to reach the traffic lights). Indeed, 7 London cycle couriers have died as a consequence of collisions with HGVs and lorries and it’s arguable that they are the most knowledgeable cyclists on our roads. Not all HGVs have as many mirrors fitted as the truck in the film. Even if they did there is no guarantee that the driver is looking in those mirrors as you pass by. The simple fact is this; cyclists and large vehicles sharing the same piece of road is a source of conflict – sometimes with awful consequences.

Meryem Ozekman was 37 when she was crushed to death by a lorry on the Elephant and Castle roundabout in 2009.

There is a growing awareness of this problem amongst the authorities and some measures are being brought in to try and combat the issue – there will soon be a trial allowing cyclists to turn left on red lights, thus allowing them to get ahead of the danger posed at junctions, and new trixi mirrors will be installed at junctions along the London Cycle Superhighways, allowing large vehicles to see fully down the side of their vehicles. But more can, and must, be done.

If large vehicles are going to be allowed into city centres where a large volume of pedestrians and cyclists are inevitable, standards for HGV drivers and the state of their vehicles must be improved.

The Met Police Commercial Vehicle Education Unit was set up to tackle shoddy safety standards amongst hauliers – of the 3000+ lorries it has pulled over and assessed on London’s roads since 2005, a massive 70% have been found to have illegal defects. Sadly, our Mayor Boris Johnson is scrapping this scheme – it’s duties will apparently be absorbed by the traffic Police (whose numbers have also been cut by 20% in recent years) and covered by a voluntary traffic safety scheme that hauliers are under no obligation to join. This is the same Mayor who was almost taken out whilst cycling by a truck whose rear doors were held shut with a wire coat hanger...

More must be done at higher levels to incentivise haulage firms to prioritise safety over the speed of their next delivery. The Crown Prosecution Service must bring the highest charges if a driver is proven to be at fault, unlike in the case of cyclist Anthony Maynard, who was run over from behind in 2008 by a van driver who claimed in his defence that he didn't see Anthony cycling – this was excuse enough for no charges to be brought against the driver. More recently, the tragic death of 30 year old Eilidh Cairns has made the headlines; she was crushed to death on a road that the inquest into her death deemed too narrow to pass on. The inquest also found that if the driver had adjusted his mirrors correctly, he would have been able to see Eilidh clearly. The point in the road at which the accident happened was just 2 metres wide – the driver’s vehicle was 2.5 metres, raising the question of why he was on that particular road in the first place. A verdict of accidental death was delivered.

Ms Cairns's sister Kate said “The one thing we didn't want was an accidental verdict. We agree it was not intentional but we believed it was avoidable. People in power act as though these accidents just unfortunately happen to female cyclists and people have to deal with it. There is a huge problem with female cyclists being on the streets of London with HGVs and politicians are not doing enough to address that.

“These cyclists are not soldiers going into battle. They are just women going to work and nobody is doing anything to stop this needless slaughter.”

Eilidh’s family and friends have been instrumental in increasing awareness of the issues surrounding HGVs on our streets – they have been able to have an Early Day Motion tabled in Parliament calling for MPs to consider the law as it currently stands and what could be done in the future to stop the deaths: an essential first step in having this vital issue discussed at a higher level. At present 47 Members for Parliament support it, but it needs more signatures - write to your MP using an easy online form here and ensure they are fully aware of how important this issue is and ask them to add their support to EDM 600, which can be found here.

Last word goes to Kate Cairns, Eilid’s sister: ”We need to address the source of the danger. Policies of protection are not enough. I think we should be considering future lorry design, how compatible they are with our streets and the way the fleets are managed. By supporting this EDM MPs are working towards finding a real solution. It makes sense when all benefits are taken into account”

If you are a London cyclist and have ever wobbled slightly as the enormous wheels of an HGV pass you by, my advice to you would be two things: help protect others by urging your MP to support this motion, and help yourself by staying back in the traffic at junctions when there is a lorry ahead of you – no one is ever in that much of a rush that they need put themselves in unnecessary danger.

City's cyclists should have their say (and Mayor Boris should listen)

Mayor of London Boris Johnson held a meeting last Friday with representatives of some of the UK’s biggest cycling manufacturers and retailers. Aiming to brainstorm ways to encourage more cycling in London - with a specific focus on fixing the issues of safety and security – sadly, the Mayor is misguided if he thinks he is inviting the right people to City Hall...

Whilst high level cycling industry big-wigs undoubtedly have a passion for bikes and all that goes with them, it’s questionable how focussed they are on the real issues at hand. Representatives of big corporations are ultimately, no matter how well intentioned, going to be driven by their bottom line and profit margins.

Increasing bike security? As cyclists we all know the answer to this is better and more frequent cycle parking, given the same kind of street patrols and CCTV as vehicle parking, and the Metropolitan Police making at least a token start at taking cycle theft seriously. The industry, I suspect, will recommend we buy bigger, and stronger locks – maybe even two, or three per bike (which is now becoming the standard in London)

Getting more people on bikes? As regular readers here will know, I firmly believe that we need to take the ‘other’ out of cycling and rehabilitate it as an everyday and ordinary activity in people’s lives again. If you want mass cycling rates, the masses need to be able to associate with cycling. I’d probably start with the inequality in cycling rates between men and women and be asking why aren’t more women cycling? On this point I am inclined to agree with BikeBiz Editor Carlton Reid: “Not all cycling women want to be Audrey Hepburn with a basket-on-the-front, pearlised-pink Dutch bike. But there’s no escaping that this sector is the one that produces the best photographs for promoting cycling to a mainstream audience. Forget helmets, Lycra and speed; non-cyclists find all that a big turn-off”.  Promoting the public face of cycling as mainstream?  That's not something the bicycle industry has been doing, as I’ve previously discussed.

And, as we've otherwise discussed here, if the Mayor really wants to see cycling levels explode across London, he could do a lot worse by not scrapping the only Police department entirely dedicated to reigning in errant HGVs - the cause of the majority of fatal incidents in London.  Perhaps he could focus on a truly original cycle safety action plan instead of the current limp offering City Hall is presently putting forward.  I've said it before and I'll say it again; aiming for cycling to be just 5% modal share of all traffic by 2026 is less like a velorution and more like a wet Wednesay matinee of Les Miserables.

2010 does stand to be a record year for cycling in London. Transport for London, under the stewardship of Mayor Johnson, will launch 6000 new bikes onto our streets with the launch of the Zone 1 bike hire scheme. The first two of 12 ‘cycle superhighways’ (essentially existing cycle lanes re-painted and re-branded to raise their awareness) will open to the general public. The cycling budget for the next five years is a fairly hefty £110 million pounds. The potential for a political backlash from the Mayor’s outer-London car-dependant voting block is massive if these schemes are seen to fail. As such, you’d think he’d be inviting representatives from the cities of Copenhagen, Groningen or Amsterdam to his cycling summit, rather than a self-publicising ex-promoter of a pedal car race from Dorset.  (No, dear readers, I kid you not.)

I’m sure the people from our various bike manufacturers are lovely people, and that they believe their hearts are in the right place, but I don't believe they have the day-in day-out first hand experience of cycling in our capital city that the city’s cyclists do. Bike shops traditionally do not make much money on the bikes they sell – the profit margin lies in the sporting cyclist’s favourite mantra; “Accessorize, accessorize, accessorize.” London’s cyclists know, however, that no amount of whiz-bang gadgets or sweat-whicking clothing are going to get more people on two wheels – only strong clear infrastructure and safe roads for all will do that. Perhaps with their help the city can avoid installing nightmarish cycle lanes such as this, or remember to include cyclists in all of their transport projects in the future, unlike here.

It’s great that the Mayor and his people are seeking out industry opinion, but if they want to know how to really make 2010 London’s cycling year they could start with talking to our city’s cycling groups, dare I say it, it’s cycling bloggers, and - shock-horror-gasp! – even the city’s cyclists themselves.

Cyclists are NOT barred from Oxford Circus

Regular visitors to i b i k e l o n d o n will recall my post questioning whether cyclists had been barred from the new Oxford Circus development, and showing how unclear and un-cycle friendly the signage was.

Well, I'm not sure if the new signange is any less unclear, but it does show at least that cyclists have the full right to make turns across Oxford Circus where all other vehicles are allowed to turn.

New signs - taxis, buses AND bicycles (Picture: Westminster Cycle Campaign)

A small victory, perhaps, but the points I made originally are still valid;

A.  It's nice to know that one can cycle about town without breaking the law or worrying that you may have done so.

B.  In this, Boris Johnson's so-called cycling city, things should have been clearer from the outset considering this was supposed to be a £5 million flag-ship street development.

A big thanks to our friends at the Westminster Cycling Campaign for the tip-off about the changed signs.

Why cycle storage matters...

Any barrier to cycling is a bad thing - and there are many psychological barriers that can build up to such a level that you never end up using your bicycle at all ("It's too cold, I'm too tired, I can't be arsed to carry my bike down five flights of stairs....")  It might seem ridiculous, but in order for there to be a massive increase in cycling rates in this country cycling needs to be made easier.  One way to do this is to ensure that those people who live in inner-city and high density areas (those, who I think it is fair to presume have the most potential for increasing their cycle trips) have somewhere to store their bikes easily and securely.

Cycle theft in London has been a growing phenomenon recently.  Nobody wants to have to carry two or three different kinds of lock around with them, but sadly it's often a necessity here (that, or resorting to using a Brompton and taking it everywhere with you, as oppose to leaving it in the street.)  But, if you don't feel safe locking your bike up outside, or if there is nowhere suitable to lock it - and you can't afford a Brompton -  you don't want to have to carry your bicycle up and down into your home twice a day.  (The stairs up to my flat are Amsterdam-esque in their narrowness - it takes two of us to carry a bicycle indoors and work it up to our pad)  You want to be able to know that your chosen mode of transport is going to be there for you when you need it, not sprirted away to the bottom of the local canal...

(Bike frame on the Regent's Canal at Victoria Park.  Photo via Velo Runner blog, with thanks)

Consider the motor car and think how easy it is to use.  It's pretty secure in itself with it's central locking and immobilising systems, can be left on the street and isn't easy to steal.  To open it you just have to press a button, turn a key and away you go.  We need to make bicycles as easy to use as that!

It's great that there is more bike parking in the city centre these days (though we do need more), and I've already written about the woeful inadequecies of cycle parking at central London stations, but how about some joined up thinking from our Borough leaders and planners on ensuring that there is somewhere to park your bike at home too?  The planning standards of my home borough, Tower Hamets, dictate that new residential developments only need provide one cycle parking place for every three flats (bearing in mind that developers usually count one Sheffield stand as parking for two bikes), and one 'secure place' for every new house.  For motor vehicle parking all new residential buildings must have one car parking space per dwelling (plus one visitor space for every 10 dwellings!) - hardly the kind of far-sitedness needed to bring about substantial change in a Borough that is a spit from Central London and is stuffed with Tube lines, buses, London Overground and the Docklands Light Railway.  The Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington on the other side of town is slightly better, mandating for "Space suitable for the convenient, safe and secure storage of at least 1 bicycle per dwelling unit."

Of course, developers are driven by their bottom line and will not be keen to give over too much of their expensive valuable land to cycle parking, especially when car parking spaces might seem more desirable (though there have been recent moves to the contrary according to London's estate agents), but with a modicum of imagination, good quality cycle parking can be provided on street and include traffic calming measures at the same time (see the Beech Croft Road experiment over at Roadwitch)  Well-maintained and used cycle parking also has the added beneficial psychological effect of demonstrating to other residents how many cyclists there are on their street, and might help them consider getting back on their bikes themselves.

What is the cycle provision in your local community like?  Are there bike stands on your street? How many locks do you carry?  Do you even dare leave your bicycle outside at home at night?  I'm keen to hear your thoughts!

Is this the worse cycle lane in London?

You'll often hear the argument from other cyclists that we should "be grateful for any cycling provision we get" or that cycle lanes that have been campaigned for have been "hard earnt", as if this means we should be silent in accepting them if they are second rate, or worse still dangerous.


Unfortunately, there are many cycle lanes here in central London that are so second rate as to actually pose a danger to cyclists.  Defensive cycling means cycling at least three feet out from the curb, away from the gutters full of dirt and debris, away from the doors of parked cars that might open at any moment, away from the potholes and drains and, most importantly, out in the lane where you can maintain a straight predictable course (instead of weaving back and forth between gaps in parked cars) and where you can be seen by other road users. 

If you kept within the boundaries of this cycle lane that I snapped on Lambeth Bridge near the Palace of Westminster you would be riding less than half a metre from the curb side - the useable part of the lane (ie the bit not covered in half an inch of raised slippery-when-wet paint or in the gutters) is so narrow you'd be so busy focussing on trying to balance and maintain a straight line within the confines of the lane that you probably wouldn't even notice the lorry ahead of you turning left without signalling....


Cycles lanes like this decrease the road space available to cyclists and, because drivers seem to perceive the painted boundaries of such lanes as some kind of 'magic barrier' are likely to get much closer when passing - this was demonstrated by a report by the Warrington Cycle Campaign  which showed the differences between overtaking space given by vehicles to cyclists on the road and cyclists in designated cycle lanes:

And when cyclists are wise enough to protect themselves by choosing not to use poorly designed cycling infrastructure, they are accused by motor users of not 'getting out of the way' and using the lanes provided (at great expense no doubt!).  This only increases the animosity sometimes evident between cyclists and other road users.

Regardless of the statistical truth, cycling is perceived as being a dangerous activity in central London.  Whilst more and more people are realising how easy, safe and convenient cycling really is, and the numbers of cyclists are growing year on year, we are a long way off from 'convincing the masses' to get astride their bikes.  If there is to be a shift-change towards achieving mass cycling rates (such as in the Netherlands or Denmark where certain urban areas are currently working towards achieving 50% of modal share of journeys by bicycle) there needs to be perceptibly safe and well-designed cycling infrastructure provided.  Our present Mayor is exceptional at marketing cycling in a positive and encouraging way that makes cycling out to be everyday and ordinary, which is great, but the marketing spin has to be backed up with well maintained, well designed and good quality infrastructure to boot.  If you don't think your Mum or Gran would feel safe using the facility provided (such as the Lambeth Bridge cycle lane) then it isn't good enough, and if you don't think your Mum and your Gran would feel safe cycling in the traffic there either then something else, a third way in terms of cycling facilities, needs to be found for London...

Post Script:

Of course not all cycling facilities in London are as bad as the one above, and some do provide safe passage or well constructed contra-flows against one way systems or across dangerous gyratorys.  But they need to be maintained and patrolled (like double yellow lines) to ensure that people don't abuse the facilities and park in them.  Over at MyBikeLane you can view and report incidents of vehicles encroaching on our space.  I am sure that most London cyclists will be more than familiar with having to cycle round one of their worst perpetrators:

 

Are cyclists banned from Oxford Circus?

London's busiest pedestrian crossing used to be a perennial muddle of heaving buses, squeezing, wheezing pedestrians and a cattle-pen of people trying to work their way across lanes of traffic from department stores to Underground station and back again. Oxford Circus was not, in any way, a pleasurable experience for anyone.





The crossing was recently redeveloped to prioritise pedestrians and allow them to cross diagonally as well as laterally. Pedestrian space has been increased, barriers and street clutter have been removed, traffic has been slowed and the Circus has become a 'naked street' where all players take responsibility for their own actions, and (so the theory goes) therefore act more safely.  The entire consultation, design and construction process took two years and cost some 5 million pounds.  The press in the UK has portrayed it as a revolution in urban planning.





So far, so good. So it was to my surprise that the Westminster arm of the London Cycle Campaign recently pointed out that it was their opinion that cyclists had been barred from Oxford Street. Surely this couldn't be possible, not in Mayor Boris Johnson's cycling city on this, what must be the eve of his so-called cycling revolution?!
Armed with my trusty camera I braved the Christmas shopping hordes to find out for myself.





There sure enough was the 'X Crossing' or 'Circus Scramble', if you prefer, in action. Vehicles went one way, then went the other way, then all the little green men came on at once and pedestrians went all ways and any ways. There were cyclists to be seen traversing the Circus too. Some with very exciting hair cuts.





But just as Westminster LCC had forewarned me, there were the signs attached to the traffic lights that told me all I need to know: 'Straight ahead only, except buses and taxis', or 'No turn, except buses and taxis'.






Back home I thought I'd check on the free cycling maps that the nice people at Transport for London provide just to make sure that Oxford Circus hadn't always banned cyclists (for example like at Trafalgar Square) But no, there on the map the Circus was painted blue, which supposedly means it's a "Route signed for cyclists that may be on busier roads"


According to the signs attached to the traffic lights:


Cyclists approaching Oxford Circus from Regent Street (north or south) have to continue straight ahead and cannot turn into Oxford Street.


Cyclists approaching Oxford Circus from Oxford Street (east or west) have to turn left into Regent Street and cannot continue along Oxford Street.


Cyclists in Harewood Place have to continue straight ahead into Holles Street and cannot turn into Oxford Street.





Either this is some kind of deliberate plan to exclude cyclists from Oxford Circus - in which case Westminster Council are up to something - or it is massive "fail" on the part of the planners and designers to incorporate cycles into their descriptions, directions, sign posting and street design.


Of course, just like a red traffic light there is no actual physical barrier to stop you from turning if your heart is set on it and you judge it safe to do so, but I'd prefer to be able to cycle throughout the city without having to take the law into my own hands because of some half-baked ill-thought-out planning decision. Regardless of the rights of wrongs on all sides cyclists will continue to turn across the Circus should they so please, but this is hardly a 'best practice' example of how to make cycling an easy and attractive transport option for ordinary and everyday people. And, yes, at the most base of levels, as a tax payer who contributes to the building and maintenance of roads (yes, that's right, I'm a cyclist and I pay 'road tax' ) I want to make sure that my transport option of choice - the bicycle - is catered for when 5 million big ones are being spent on 'improving' our urban environment.


Members of the LCC are currently waiting to hear back from Westminster Council on what on earth is going on, but the Council, it seems, has been busy with other cycling schemes.

Build your own bicycle infrastructure

Ever wish you were on a broad safe cycle lane as those taxis buzz you on your peddle home at night?

Utterly in despair that your local council has failed to build any worthwhile bike lanes in recent years?

Would love to cycle in your bike lane, but can't 'cos someone has parked in it?!

Well, how about bringing your own cycle infrastructure with you?



This is a prototype currently in development at LightLane - what do we all think?  Would you fit a laser beam cycle lane to your bike?

New cycling bridge for East London & 2012 Olympics

A new bridge connecting Bethnal Green and Bow recently opened to pedestrians and cyclists, forming a new link over the Regent's Canal.

The 65 tonne Meath Bridge was assembled off-site in sections and craned into position in Mile End Ecology Park.  Developed between Sustrans and Tower Hamlets Council, it was funded by the National Lottery 'Big Lottery Fund' after locals chose the bridge in a vote when asked what new local facilities they would like.

Young cyclist Juhen Islam tests out the new bridge over Regent's Canal, photo courtesy of the East End Advertiser

Close by are the popular Palm Tree pub, Broadway Markets and the canal towpath which links Limehouse and Canary Wharf in the south with north and west London; all popular cycling spots.  The bridge itself is within Mile End Ecology Park which is heavily utilised by families and young children, and negates the need to traverse the canal by the busy Mile End and Roman Roads.

The link forms the first step in the development of a Sustrans-led Greenways project between Bethnal Green and the 2012 Olympic park in Stratford via Victoria Park, due to open in time for the Games and part of a series of upgraded or new Greenways which will connect the Games to greater London.  2012 organisers have pledged that 100% of spectators will arrive by public transport, walking or cycling.