Vigil at Bow roundabout - TONIGHT

"..these Superhighways are central to the cycling revolution I'm determined to bring about. No longer will pedal power have to dance and dodge around petrol power - on these routes the bicycle will dominate and that will be clear to all others using them. That should transform the experience of cycling - boosting safety and confidence of everyone using the routes and reinforcing my view that the bike is the best way to travel in this wonderful city of ours." 

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London

"During a 2010 inspection ride, prior to the implementation of the Cycle Superhighway that connects with this junction, we warned TfL in the starkest terms of the dangers of left-turning vehicles, high traffic volumes and speeds, and the absence of provision for cyclists.
And when we saw the woefully inadequate design for the Superhighway in February, we wrote to senior Transport for London management to warn them expressly that this roundabout posed a continued and real danger.
We are appalled at this latest, preventable death and are fearful of what may happen when large numbers of cyclists have to tackle this junction on their way to and from the Olympics.
We cannot understand how this junction can form part of what is one of the Mayor’s flagship cycling projects.”

Dr Ashok Sinha, Chief Executive, London Cycling Campaign.

May Brian Dorling, 54, and the as yet unnamed 34 year old female cyclist recently killed on this junction rest in peace.


Share |

The trouble with trucks and cyclists...

"I saw this incident today. The poor girl was on a bike and I heard her scream as she went under the truck. I was at the lights heading towards Oxford Street on a bike just a few metres away. I called the ambulance. I'm a bit traumatised by it all to be honest... "

"..I was one of the cyclists who was with her until the ambulance arrived. It was horrendous and completely shocking."

"I felt pretty sick and shaky and had to sit down for a while after.  Massive, massive respect to two other female cyclists who spoke with and held the poor girl's hand while waiting for the ambulance. It wasn't a pretty scene but they looked very calm and composed which I hope would have been some reassurance..."

"When I was talking to the emergency services they kept asking me questions like - is she trapped above or below the knee? Can she breathe? Is she having trouble breathing?"

"...while we were there she was fully conscious - breathing and able to talk. I'll spare the details but she was trapped above the knee. Although we were trying to keep her calm, hold her hand and talk to her, we felt so helpless as there was absolutely nothing else we could do..."

So speak the witnesses to another shocking lorry-on-cyclist collision in London last week. "Veronika" was riding across the Marble Arch gyratory during the morning rush hour last Tuesday when an armoured banking truck and her bike came together.  She suffered terrible, life-changing injuries and is still in intensive care.  Those who helped her as she lay in the road spoke of the horror of their experience on the London Fixed Gear and Single Speed forum.  My personal prayers and best wishes go out to them, and of course to Veronika and her family and loved ones, and I hope that she is receiving the very best of care.

Regular readers to this blog will know that the lorry issue is an ongoing cause of mine - there can be no doubt that there is no greater risk to London's cyclists.  Things have been quiet recently; it seems, somewhat macabrely, as though there have been fewer deaths of late than is usual (as if even one is acceptable) and subsequently the heat has gone off the issue in the mainstream press and political circles somewhat.  But this is false thinking - the threat to cyclist's lives from these vehicles is not going to go away.  Last year trucks caused 69% of London cyclist deaths.  In 2008 it was 88%.

In November a new study by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) found that lorries were involved in 43% of all London cyclist deaths between '92 and '06.  Dr Andrei Morgan from the LSHTM's public health department said; "This unnecessary death toll cannot be ignored any longer. At a time when we are seeking to encourage more people to cycle, both for health and environmental reasons, this is not good enough."

This follows a similar study in the British Medical Journal in 1994 which looked at the cause of death of cyclists in London between 1985 and 1992 and came to the same conclusion; "In inner London, in relation to their traffic volume, HGVs are estimated to cause 30 times as many cyclists deaths as cars and five times as many as buses. Until the factors leading to this excess risk are understood, a ban on HGVs in urban areas should be considered."

Dr Morgan said: "The shocking thing is that there is no evidence of any change since this study was published, despite many changes in cycling behaviour."

Those 2 studies, which come to the same conclusion, represent 25 years of needless deaths on London's roads at the hands of Heavy Goods Vehicles.

Meanwhile Mayor Boris Johnson has made noises, kind of, perhaps, that he might consider banning retail lorries from central London on air pollution grounds and would consider building distribution centres to receive heavy goods vehicles straight from the motorway network.  That little soundite was made on the hoof at Mayor's Question Time at the end of October - nothing has been said since.

Meanwhile, the firm which employed killer lorry driver Dennis Putz - the drink driving criminal who had some 20 previous driving convictions when he ran down cyclist Catriona Patel whilst under the influence of alcohol and whilst using his mobile phone - has been involved in another fatal collision.  This time it's a passenger in a cab which was struck by a Thames Materials truck after it smashed through the central reservation on the A4.  The driver is being questioned on suspicion of death by dangerous driving, driving while unfit and possession of a controlled substance.  This is the same firm - with whose 32-tonne trucks we 'share the road' - who the Traffic Commissioner tried to shut down in 2002 so concerned were they with the volume of convictions and inspection failures that the firm carried.  The order was overturned on appeal due to faulty paperwork, and the firm's trucks have gone on to kill since then.

And let us not forget, as has been highlighted here before, the inherent criminality of the road haulage industry here in London; 70% of ALL the lorries inspected by the Met Police Commercial Vehicles Inspection Unit since 2005 have been found to have some form of illegal defect; overloading, underinflated tyres, faulty tachographs, drivers exceeding their legal hour limit, drivers being illegal workers or unlicensed, doors held together with wire coat hangers as they speed down narrow residential streets; that sort of thing.  Something worth remembering, methinks, next time someone tries to tell you how essential to the city's economy all those trucks full of plastic spoons and bottled water are.

 

The message to cyclists to keep well away from trucks has been communicated clearly for some time now, yet it doesn't seem to be having an effect on the relentless death and serious injury rates.  When you're up against a 32-tonne truck driven by a drunk criminal on a mobile there's only so much you can do to protect yourself anyway.  What is to be done? What indeed.

 

Back over at the London Fixed Gear and Single Speed Forum those lovely fixed gear riders are helping lorry safety campaigners get a motion passed at the EU enforcing stricter design standards be implemented on all new heavy goods vehicles.  It's a very big ask, but one worth asking.  If you did one thing useful today it would be to read this and help them with their letter campaign.

 

In the meantime, the Police who are investigating Veronika's collision on Marble Arch are seeking witnesses.  If you were near the junction of Bayswater and Edgeware Road at about 08.50 last Tuesday the 7th December please call the dedicated witness line on 020 8941 9011.

 

 

I do not believe we should have to share the road with criminal drivers and criminal companies and I do believe that more should be done about this issue as a matter of absolute urgency.  Until then, dear readers, if you are at a junction in front of a truck position yourself as far forward as possible and establish eye contact with the driver to ensure they are aware of your presence.  If you are approaching a truck from behind (stationary or otherwise) do not undertake it on the left and avoid overtaking on the right unless you have a clear view and are able to make eye contact with the driver in his mirrors (ring your bell if necessary)  If you are in any doubt whatsoever, wait at the back of the vehicle, keeping well clear, even if it means stopping other cyclists in turn passing you.  Ride safe, readers.

Share |

Strict Liability: if you want it, ask for it.

If there's one reason why more people don't cycle, and one reason only, it's because the majority of people don't feel safe cycling on our roads.  There are many things that can be done to combat this; the provision of better cycle infrastructure, as I've previously espoused, will go a long way.  Maps providing 'quiet routes', free or subsidised cycle training, and behavioural campaigns can all help too, but to a much lesser extent.  The big wins come from reducing the fear of cycling.

I don't think it is irrational to be afraid of cycling in traffic.  I'm a 6ft tall twenty something lad.  I keep fit and can pick up the pace with the best of them when I want to.  I consider myself to be a strong, attentive and considerate cyclist; always looking ahead in the road and assessing what obstacle I might need to navigate next.  But that's not to say I don't sometimes feel genuinely terrified on our roads, no matter what my 'right' might be to ride there.  Being overtaken at speed whilst riding wide on the narrow back streets of Covent Garden by a 40-tonne supermarket truck whilst the driver screams out of his window "Get out of MY way!" is an experience that would deter most people.  It deterred me for a while.  If I had kids would I let them cycle in similar conditions?  Would my dear old Mum who rides at a stately but sedate pace be able to dodge and swerve at speed to avoid getting sucked under said supermarket lorry as I did?  Would I even feel comfortable letting her try?

Navigating Holborn Circus

And even if my Mum, or my hopefully never-to-materialise-rhetorical-children did feel they could manage the streets, how much of a disincentive would it be to their riding if they knew that were they to be hit by a car, or a bus, or a truck that they would have to chase the Police to collect evidence properly, be treated like idiots by coroners, endure months of Court Room anguish only to have their collision essentially pooh-poohed and shrugged off as 'one of those things'?  That's what Eilidh Cairn's family have just been through, and the lorry driver who ran over and killed their beautiful daughter, their marvellous sister, was fined just £200 for driving with defective eye sight and was not even prosecuted for the collision.

The family of Catriona Patel are in Court this week going through the same broken, painful Judicial system essentially trying to prove that someone who was unfit to drive is guilty because his actions led to her death.  It's a sick set up that puts all of the onus on the bereaved to pursue Justice as fast as they can as it flees in the name of 'fairness'.

Critical Mass against lorry danger, March 2010. Lauriston Road, Hackney, where flowers were laid on the spot where Shivon Watson was hit and killed by a skipper lorry.

If tomorrow I take a gun, point it at a cyclist and pull the trigger, I would do so in the knowledge of what the consequences of such actions would be.  The Law would not hesitate to find me guilty and serve up a suitable punishment.

If I drive past a cyclist in a car I know that bikes, by their very nature, can behave erratically (swerving pot holes, wobbling in the wind etc).  I should follow the advice given in the Highway Code and give that cyclist as much room as I would another car should I decide to overtake.  If I come to the traffic lights and pull up to the Advanced Stop Line, having passed my driving test and therefore having been deemed to understand the rules of the road, I should wait outside the box and "mirror, signal, manoeuvre" before driving off on green, checking for other road users before I set off.  Common sense, you'd think?  But there are plenty of  instances where a driver has hit a cyclist or a pedestrian in similar circumstances and gotten away with little more than a wrap across the knuckles.

Carlton Reid's take on Strict Liability, from his website I Pay Road Tax

"Strict Liability" (Wiki) is a legal process in force in all but 4 EU Countries for road traffic law, of which the UK is one.  Essentially it introduces a 'food chain' to the road environment; the more dangerous the vehicle you drive the more onus there is on you, as the source of danger, to be the one to look out for more vulnerable road users.  Cyclists are expected to look out for pedestrians, car drivers for cyclists, truckers in 40-tonne rigs for everybody else.  Under Strict Liability if you hit a cyclist in a car it's up to you to prove that you are innocent, as oppose to the injured cyclist (or their bereaved family) trying to prove that the bigger threat was guilty. 

Opponents to the EU 5th Motoring Directive, which will potentially bring 'Strict Liability' to our shores, will tell you that it will give errant cyclists free reign to ride as they please, even if it puts them and other road users in danger.  This is clearly nonsense; if the actions of a cyclist directly lead to the collision then the Courts of Law are still there to prove this and find the perpetrator of a collision guilty.  Furthermore I see potentially few cyclists flinging themselves into the paths of oncoming motorists in order to make a point.  Opponents also say that our laws are based on the bold principal of everyone being "innocent till proven guilty" but this is just a convenient soundbite.  If you rear-end a car in the UK you are guilty by default for being too close to the car in front, no matter how erratically or oddly that car might have been driving.  Strict Liability will introduce the same concept for more vulnerable road users, and already exists in other sectors of law such as commercial law with regards to dangerous practices.

Once upon a time in the UK it was socially acceptable to drink and drive; everyone did it and therefore it was what a Lawyer friend of mine called "a shruggable offence", that is to say something so common that it hardly seemed a big deal.  Social attitudes have changed on that front, and they can again for Strict Liability.  Right now if you overtake within inches of a cyclist it is a "shruggable offence".  No one will think any more of it, nor that it is especially serious.  Indeed, we even have cycle campaigns built around the whole inevitability of it all with "Sorry Mate I Didn't See You".  Strict Liability could help to change this, essentially forcing people to take the level of care they know they ought to around more vulnerable road users.  Twisting the arm of the worst perpetrators of road incidents is a course of action I'm prepared to ake if it increases the desirability and feasibility of walking and cycling for more people, and most importantly if it helps to make our roads safer.

The headline-driven backlash against even the idea of Strict Liability will, when the time comes, be so loud and so poisonous that it could, in true tabloid fashion, seriously compromise the likelihood of it ever being introduced here.  Indeed Petronella Wyatt of the Daily Mail has already had a good bash at it and wasn't afraid to use lies, damn lies, to push her agenda on this subject.  There will be many others too, and if they all shout loud enough don't be surprised if our leading politicians stand up in the House of Commons and say the very thought of this legislation makes them sick.

The key to getting legislation passed is to ensure that our elected officials have heard loudly and often from their constituents that said legislation is desirable to them.  Before the tabloids start their engines it would be no bad thing if every cyclist in the country dropped their MP and MEP a quick line telling them how MARVELLOUS they think Strict Liability is and how you simply won't be able to WAIT to vote for them again should they help usher in this legislation.  Do it, do it now, before Petronella Wyatt and her ilk get there before you.

You can write to you MP or MEP using the automated email service They Work For You.

With regards to lorry danger; Catriona Patel's hearing takes place this week at Inner London Crown Court.  The London Cycling Campaign is calling for signatures to a petition requesting all London Councils introduce cyclist awareness training for their lorry drivers.  Why not sign it over here? 

Share |

Cycling video round up

There are loads of videos out there at the moment on our favourite subject...


Let's start in one of my favourite cycling cities, Amsterdam, where someone has decided to express their love for cycling culture in the city through the medium of, um.. ...rap!  It's not as naff as it sounds and I enjoyed it.  The moment at 3 minutes 30seconds where the girl runs behind the back of the bike and jumps on the pannier rack is pure Holland in my eyes: I once tried to do this in front of a crowded street cafe and failed miserably, ending up sprawled across the road and being laughed at.  I can't reccomend it highly enough(!)

As most of you know by now London is at last about to launch it's very own bike hire scheme.  From July 30th some 6000 hire bikes will be available for free short rentals around the city and I for one can't wait for this addition to the streetscape.  Here's a video from Transport for London on how the whole scheme works (see if you can't spot a little animated cameo from our cycling Mayor near the end):

Lastly, Camden Council have produced this thoughtful little film about the danger posed by heavy goods vehicles to cyclists in London.  I like the fact that the messages are quite clear; that we all need to look out for one another, that a cyclist will always come off worse in an accident and that cyclists should avoid the 'danger zone' on the inside of lorries for the sake of self preservation.  It's great at least that Councils are taking steps to address this problem.  What do you think?

Cycle safety

The Mayor of London and Transport for London launched their cycle safety action plan last week.  Tragically, two London cyclists were killed by lorries in two separate shocking collisions within 24 hours of the launch of the plan.  My heart goes out to the family and friends of Muhammad “Haris” Ahmed, 21 years old, and Shivon Watson, 28 years old.  Muhammad and Shivon are the second and third cyclists to die in collisions with lorries in London so far this year, after University professor David Vilaseca-Perez, 46, was run down by a skip lorry near his home on the South Bank. 

There will be more (much more) about the relationship between trucks and cyclists on this blog over the forthcoming weeks, but in the interim I would ask that you reflect on the tragic nature of these lost lives, and, if you're a cyclist read my previous article about sharing the road with large vehicles, the main theme of my advice being this:  no matter how much of a rush you are in keep the hell away from large vehicles, and never, ever, travel down their inside - even if it is to get to Advanced Stop Line bike at the front of traffic lights.

- - -

Moving on, and to address the Cycle Safety Action Plan more fully:

After close proximity collisions, the largest source of deaths and serious injuries for cyclists (17%) comes, perhaps surprisingly, from OTHER vehicles disobeying junction controls.  To clarify, that means that 17% of cyclists killed or seriously injured have been hit as a consequence of other vehicles jumping red lights or not giving way at stop signs.  By contrast, cyclists jumping red lights into the path of oncoming traffic represent just 5% of casualties (1 fatality and 22 seriously injured.)  Unfortunately the statistics are not detailed enough to reveal whether the cyclist jumped the red light as a consequence of just 'being in a rush' or to put distance between themselves and other traffic (for example HGVs), or whether there was an ASL box at the junction they jumped and whether or not this was occupied by other vehicles. 

To me, the solution to this issue is clear; design junctions with ASLs with approach lanes from the CENTRE (not left) of the road, and ensure that ASLs, stop lines and junction controls are enforced for ALL road users.  Sadly, with the Met's road safety funding being cut by £10million by our Mayor I don't see this happening any time soon.  (It's worth remembering that this is the same 'cycling Mayor' who moved to scrap the Commercial Vehicle Education Unit, the only Police department with Health & Safety Executive powers which could take dangerous or illegal trucks off of London's roads.  After much campaigning by the friends and families of cyclists who had been previously killed by trucks, and by cycling campaign groups, the Met moved to retain the unit itself and absorb the gap left in it's funding after the withdrawal of cash from TfL and the Mayor.)

The cycle safety plan has many other points and action plans, and is generally a much stronger document than the draft which was widely consulted on last year.  Plus points include boosting training provision for cyclists to coincide with the launch of the cycle hire and cycle superhighway schemes, and continuing to support London boroughs to fund cycle training for residents.  (Incidentally, for those who didn't know, all London boroughs now offer cycle training for free or at a highly reduced rate.  Even if you consider yourself an 'advanced' cyclist, if you've never taken your quota of free lessons I strongly recomend you do.)  Other positives include working with the London Criminal Justice Board to review cycling casualty stats with a view to strengthening criminal justice arrangements for dealing with such cases, and trialling 'trixi' concave mirrors at traffic lights to aid large vehicle drivers to be able to see down the left hand side of their vehicles and to check that there are no cyclists trapped down there before they move off.

Sadly, for all of the good in the plan, there is one key problem that greatly concerns me: there is no timetable within it for the implementation of any of the measures outlined.  Call me a cynic, but I'm sure that politicians have expressed intentions before, but without a firm timetable for delivery there is no guarantee that they will actually do any of the things listed.

Lastly, in the light of the deaths at the beginning of the week my thanks to those of you who wrote / emailed and Tweeted the Mayor and asked him to acknowledge them.  Eventually he did so, describing them as 'tragedies' and encouraged his 70,000 twitter followers to watch the new cycle safety video and to watch out for cyclists.  A small step, but let's hope that they do.

Cycling's PR problem, and its serious consequences

Cycling in the UK has a serious problem, and it’s one that’s not going to go away unless it is addressed head-on. Until then there can be no mass cycling in this country, no Mums and Grans on bicycles, no utopian dream of Amsterdam-like streets with the majority gliding down it on two wheels, not four. The problem?

Image.

The majority of people in the UK just can’t imagine themselves using a bicycle on an everyday basis. The humble bicycle has become so ‘alien’ and ‘other’ that it is now the reserve purely of special interest and leisure groups. Using a bike to "go for a ride" on a Sunday afternoon with the kids is seen as just fine here (indeed a significant majority of the UK population own bicycles and do use them for this purpose), but as a practical means of transport for everyday and ordinary use? For most this is almost unimaginable. Once upon a time there were over a BILLION cycle journeys in the UK every year – now the number has fallen so low that the cyclists we see on our roads are a tiny minority. As a modal share of all journeys, bicycles have dropped to just 1% of all traffic.

Minorities are often the victims of prejudice, and prejudice is often without grounds. But the power of prejudice is a strong thing when at work and should not be underestimated. Outside of the UK’s major urban centres, people who choose to cycle instead of drive a car are seen as quirky, or poor – labels that not many people want to associate themselves with.  Racing or long-distance cyclists – the very people who have kept the cycling flame alight in this country during the bike’s lowest ebb – are seen as diet-obsessed, lycra-clad racing machines; so utterly ‘other’ that more ordinary mortals just can’t see themselves doing the same thing. And who wants to use a mode of transport where you have to dress up in funny body-hugging clothes when you can climb into your car in comfort? And sub-cultural groups of cyclists don’t always do themselves any favours either. Have you ever heard racing cyclists talking about their bikes together? It’s all top tubes and bottom brackets and campagnola and derailleurs – great fun if you’re into that kind of thing but total gobbledegook to your Average Joe. Sadly, as these few cyclists are the majority of the minority remaining, the cycle industry markets it’s products to them (as I’ve discussed here before) meaning the public face of cycling is ever more strange which in turn will lead to fewer people taking up their bikes as an everyday means of transport. No one ever watched the Tour de France scratch its way to the top of the Alps in a peloton of glistening lycra and thought "That looks like a normal way of getting to work."

Special interest cycling (racing, mountain biking, BMXing etc) is great, and a source of fun, fitness and pride to many people, but these are ultimately sub-divisions of the same minority. If the cyclists of the UK really want to see mass cycling levels something serious needs to change. The City of Copenhagen is currently aiming to have 50% of all its commuters cycling to work within the next 5 years. London is aiming for just 5%. London’s cyclists – though growing in number every day – are not seen in a positive light by many of London’s other road users. Again, the same prejudice-based principals are holding the majority back from seeing themselves as potentially joining the minority. Outside of cycling communities, London’s riders are seen as a new danger on our roads; pavement riders, red light jumpers, a nuisance or even an outright danger. Worse still we are perceived to be anarchic, untaxed and using roads to which we have no financial entitlement, as a selection of recent comment’s on London’s Evening Standard newspaper testify:

“And what is a cyclist anyway? The old man on his bike, the gang of hoodies on theirs, the Lycra-clad aggressive health freak!!! Cyclists are like cancer cells in the blood stream of life. They pay no dues and suck of others.”
- Kev, London, UK

“Selfish pigs like you [cyclists] clearly show that you have no more respect for more vulnerable pedestrians than litter”
- Jack, Highgate

“...it’s time these self-righteous, sanctimonious law breakers were brought under control...”
- John Bull, London

“They are a menace on the pavements, and I for one refuse to move out the way for them, they are scum nothing more, nothing less.”
- P Staker, London

“Cyclists: dangerous, selfish, arrogant, self absorbed, stupid, ill mannered, nasty heinous creatures.”
- Anticyclist, London

“Shame on you and all the other sweaty, 2-wheeled scum!”
- Sonia Esquilant, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK.

People follow examples set to them, and we have all been duped into thinking we need the special gear, the funny clothes, the flashy vests, to go about our cycling way – we’ve followed the example of those few cyclists who were left in the first place. And in doing so we are differentiating ourselves from everyday and ordinary people even further and making ourselves into a minority. Even though we all know that cycling has comparable safety rates to being a pedestrian, the hostile road environment doesn’t encourage us to hedge our bets – so we wear our high-vis jackets and fluro vests just in case. A Monday morning commuter stuck behind the wheel of his car in traffic doesn’t see a person peddling by but a strange lycra-clad backside, and quietly seethes inside. Meanwhile, the middle-aged woman at the bus stop seeing us flash past in all our high-viz glory assumes that because cyclists wear all this technical safety gear, cycling itself must be dangerous, and is therefore not something for her. Pedestrians hurrying to work step out from between cars and into the road assuming that their passage is safe because they don’t hear the approach of an engine. A cyclist swerves to avoid them and rushes by at close quarters. The pedestrian – who just isn’t used to looking for people on bikes in the road – curses and accuses us of being maniacs on the road. How many "I was nearly hit by a cyclist!" stories have you heard in comparison to "I stepped into the path of an oncoming cyclist without looking"? There just aren’t enough ordinary people on bikes out there to make it worth the raising of awareness worthwhile.  It becomes the very few us, and the very many them.

If we want mass cycling in this country (and I am making an assumption here that the likes of the CTC and the LCC actually do) it’s up to us to break down the prejudices we face and show ourselves to be everyday and ordinary people. Racing bikes and fancy team strips are just fine if you’re cycling mile after mile, but there’s just no need if you are making a short hop by bike. Remember that 60% of the UK’s car journeys are under 5 miles – there’s no reason why the majority of these trips couldn’t be done in ordinary clothes on an ordinary comfortable bicycle, if only that 60% could actually imagine themselves doing so, and thought that our roads were a safe enough environment to do so. The Dutch and the Danes manage it, why can’t we? As cyclists we all know that the majority of cyclists aren’t really Lance Armstrong wannabes, and nor do we cycle in a reckless or dangerous manner. But it’s the greater public’s perception that counts. The perception of what it means to be ‘a cyclist’, the perception of how safe the roads are, and the perception of the bicycle either as a means of getting from A to B in an ordinary way, or as a quirky, specialist, enthusiast’s machine. No one would dare call us a ‘menace’, ‘heinous’ or ‘scum’ if they thought that they were talking about people like themselves.

There needs to be a little more ‘cyclist pride’ – showing ourselves to be just like the sort of people who we want to consider taking up cycling, as well as explaining the benefits of our existence to other road users (it’s either us on bikes, or an extra 2420 kilometres of nose to bumper cars on London’s roads). Maybe this would bring about the level of cyclists needed on our roads for the vehicular environment to change in our favour. Until then this country will continue to turn out badly-designed token-effort ‘for minorities’ cycle lanes like this, and prejudice and stereotypes about cyclists in our press and public conscience like this.  Who here thinks they are a member of "the cult of cycling", as opposed to just, you know, getting around town?

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.

101 reasons to love cycling #14 - making it safer yourself

Whilst cycling is no more dangerous than walking down the street, there is a perception that it is a dangerous activity.  Well, one of the joys of cycling is that the more people who do it, the safer it becomes - the much discussed 'safety in numbers' concept.  Contrary to what certain taxi drivers seem to think, if London was flooded with cyclists tomorrow, there wouldn't be an increase in cyclists being hit by cars but actually a decrease.


"It's a virtuous cycle," says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from the University of New South Wales, Australia  "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And the safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle."

So not only are you doing so much for yourself by hopping on your bike (getting fit, saving money) you're doing something for the wider community too - making cycling safer for all, and encouraging more to cycle, who therefore make it safer for you.


A self-fulfilling circular prophecy of cycle safety?  It's reason number 13 to love cycling in London!

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:

 

Baby steps for Boris & his Draft Cycle Safety Action Plan

Time is running out for you to have your say on Transport for London's draft cycle safety action plan.

Safety is a big concern for all cyclists, and most importantly for those who'd like to cycle but are just too afraid. The new draft makes some excellent observations that are right on point; "The Mayor wants to transform London into a cycling city but this must be supported by new safety initiatives to ensure that casualty rates do not rise as a consequence." However, other areas leave a lot to be desired.

Most tellingly of all, of the 7 key proposals put forward by the draft, 3 are in direct relation to taking action on HGVs on our city's roads. This despite the fact that Boris Johnson is planning to close the Metropolitan Police Commercial Vehicle Inspection Unit which checks over lorries for safety defects and encourages safer driving.

Inevitably, the draft also focuses strongly on the London Cycle Hire Scheme which is due to launch here in the summer of 2010 and the so-called Cycling Superhighways, the first two of which will also launch next year. The hire scheme will, apparently, be accompanied by a video encouraging responsible and safe use and a 'code of conduct' for users.

There are lots of co-operative and voluntary projects between various cycling stakeholders proposed, and some cheap but very effective ideas such as the introduction of concave mirrors at traffic lights to allow high-sided vehicles to see into their own blind spots and see any cyclists stuck down their sides.

It also mandates for the continuation of free cycle training for adults across London, which is an excellent project, and spots some encouraging trends such as the 107% increase in numbers of cyclists between 2000 and 2008.

Perhaps most sadly, the draft has a pitiful target of 5% mode share of journeys by bicycle by 2026, which is less like a velorution and more like a wet Wednesday matinee of Les Miserables. (Copenhagen is currently working towards 50%)

If Boris really is as passionate about cycling in the city as he makes out to be I’d expect this draft to have lots of proposals (at least proposals, even if they aren’t followed through!) on advance traffic lights sequences for cyclists, upgrades of existing cycle lane infrastructure to segregated cycle ways, stricter penalties for infringing motorists and much more that seems to be sadly lacking from the draft in it’s current form.

If Boris really is as passionate about cycling in the city as he makes out to be, I’d expect him to be thinking big, not small as he currently is.

For those wanting to comment on the draft, you have till just the 11th of December to write in person and can do so here.

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?

The real risk of cycling? Cycling safer than walking down the road in Q2 09!

It's that time of year again when casualty figures for our roads in the last quarter are released and, inevitably, there has been some hand-wringing over the fact that there has been an increase in cyclist deaths.  The AA were first off the mark with a suitably unhelpful response "This is a problem you have when you get a whole new wave of cyclists coming to the road" said Andrew Howard, the AA's head of road safety.  Even our own CTC has been beating out the message that the safety in numbers effect will take time to come into play, and that the extra injuries could be down to a glut of inexperienced riders on the road. (Sound familiar?) 

But is this all a percentile flash in the pan?  If you look at the actual figures, there has been a 9% increase in cyclist deaths and serious injuries, contrasting a 4% decrease over the previous two quarters (which, I note, went largely unreported at the time).  In real terms this represents approximately 132 more cyclist deaths or serious injuries in the last quarter, and tragic whilst this is I haven't heard a peep from the AA about the 4920 automobile users' deaths or serious injuries in the previous quarter...  Yes, that's 97% more deaths and serious injuries in cars than on bicycles.

So let's turn the statistics on their heads.  Using the same figures here is a news flash even Boris Johnson would be proud of:  Cycling safer than walking down the road in 2nd quarter of 2009! 

Deaths and serious injuries as a % of total casulaties in Q2 09:
11%  Cyclists
19%  Pedestrians
26%  Motorcylists
38%  Cars

Slight injuries as a % of total casualties in Q2 09:
8.36%  Cyclists
10.5%  Pedestrians
08.6%  Motorcylists (presumably few injuries on motorbikes are slight)
66%  Cars

I'm rather proud of those percentages - I worked them out myself from the official data.  It made my head sore.

Malcolm Wardlow BSc MBA in 'Assessing the actual risks faced by cyclists' writes:

"Pedestrians bear a higher fatality rate than cyclists, by a factor of almost 1.5...

...the belief that cycling is dangerous turns out to be a factoid; opinion based on long repetition, not evidence."

And just in case you're one of those people who is worried that cycling is not only dangerous, as oppose to everyday and ordinary, but that furthermore  cyclists pose a serious risk to other road users and pedestrians, Mr Wardlow has the following nugget for you:
"Typically only 3- 7 third parties are killed in fatal bicycle crashes annually, as against 145 cyclist deaths.  In fatal car crashes 1,600 third parties (600 passengers, 650 pedestrians, 75 cyclists, 250 motorcyclists) are killed in addittion to 1,100 drivers."

There, that's enough of selling newspapers on stories sensationalising our roads and making cycling out to be dangerous when it is not.  Let's get on and ride!

What did Skyride achieve?

This is a video I put together of the Mayor of London's Skyride which took place back on Sunday 20th September and was the final in a series of mass participation bike rides across the UK throughout the summer.  Put on between British Cycling, the Mayor's office and Sky Broadcasting it attracted some 65000 participants to it's 15km course which is a huge number of cyclists.

Driven by a considerably larger budget than previous similar annual events (formerly 'FreeWheel') and with publicity on Sky television, in the London papers and with leaflets handed out at tube stations in the run up to the event, I think it's fair to say that the event attracted a good cross-section of Londoners, with many families taking their children along on their bikes to experience cycling in central London without the perceived risk of other road users - a Critical Mass for the chattering classes if you like!

Reviewing the pictures and making the video I've been reflecting on how much I enjoyed the day (personal highlights were meeting Sir Chris Hoy, and better still - Sponge Bob Square Pants!) - but one thing has been bugging me - why can't cycling be like this in London eery day?  By that, I don't mean that automobiles should be banned (although there are certainly a lot of areas in central London where they should be) but why isn't there this density of riders every day?

I think the fear of danger associated with cycling plays a big deal in this - there were a lot of Mums and Dads on the ride; the very people who've had it put to them that they are safer in their cars than they are cycling or walking to get where they want to be - the more they get in their cars, the less safe it is in the road.  But of course we all know that statistically you are safer on the road on a bike than in a car, and that the more who cycle the safer it becomes.  I'm not sure how sucesful events like Skyride are in helping to migrate people from cars to bicycles, but hopefully - simply through sheer volume of numbers - it can help to portray cycling as being something everyday and ordinary, which is definately a good start.