Tuesday 26 November 2013
London lorry ban. Promises, promises.
The Met Police response to the shocking number of recent cyclist deaths in London was to put officers on the streets (see cyclinglawyerlondon.blogspot.com). The Mayor’s response was to consider banning lorries from rush hour London. That was the headline, but was this a commitment, a new commitment, a serious commitment or just a headline?
As an initial response, Boris’s comments on cyclists wearing headphones earlier in the week did not amount to much of a policy solution and when Olympic cycling champion Chris Boardman joined the call for a ban on peak hour HGV traffic, the pressure to do something became intense.
So the Mayor told the London Assembly yesterday he would look into a ban. “We need to dig into this a lot” is what he was quoted as actually saying. And to be fair it is not an easy matter banning traffic from our capital. It needs political will, careful study, and planning. The case needs to be made out, in terms of risk and benefit, and the cost and other consequences assessed. The problem is that the Mayor has already committed to doing this digging: he promised as much in his Vision for Cycling document in London in March. The commitment then was to “work out how we can get HGVs out of traffic at the busiest times of the day, when they are most likely to come into conflict with cyclists”. It went further: “we will study the experience from cities such as Paris and Dublin, where lorries of a certain size are restricted from certain parts of the city or at certain times of the day”.
So presumably much of this work has now been carried out, some 8 months on? Not if yesterday’s Mayoral Question Time was anything to go by. There was more reference to “looking at other cities” and “working out how it would work” and “not ruling it out”. All future tense, nothing actually done.
So is a lorry ban a worthwhile or achievable solution to all these cycling casualties?
HGVs make up 5% of London’s traffic but account for more than 50% of cyclist fatalities; of the 14 cyclist deaths in London so far this year, 9 involved a lorry, so the case for action is already made.
But banning lorries isn’t the only option. There are several possible solutions, and to be fair, the Mayor’s Vision document set out the other initiatives, on better safety equipment on lorries, cycle awareness training for lorry drivers, reviewing criminal law penalties and improving segregation, and describes the strands of work that he had commissioned. All of these ideas, or a combination of them, may be part of the answer, but when 20 tonne lorries and bikes are in close proximity there is only so much that can be done to keep them apart.
So the option of a ban is perhaps the most draconian solution, and may well need central government legislation, but at least it has the potential to remove the danger at source.
Opponents of a ban argue that it is unworkable and that it will damage the local economy. Retailers and construction sites need to be supplied, and if not at rush hour then at other times, so lorries cannot be kept entirely out of the way.
Proponents of a ban point to Paris and Dublin, where restrictions have been in force for some years. Dublin has operated special restrictions since 2007 to keep the heaviest Dublin port lorries out of the city’s streets, with 5 axle trucks being banned from part of the city from 7 am to 7 pm daily.
In Paris most HGVs over 7.5 tonnes are not allowed inside the city’s ring road between 6 and 10 am on Mondays and after 4 pm on Fridays or at weekends. The longest articulated lorries are banned, and for lorries smaller than that (but still 29m2) the time restriction is proportionate to the size of the vehicle, with some heavy trucks being allowed in the city only at night and others only in the evening. It is reported that there were no cycling fatalities in Paris last year.
Intelligence is the key: finding out how the Paris restrictions work. Surely the Mayor’s cycling Czar Andrew Gilligan has been over to Paris to study how their restrictions operate, how they have affected casualty rates, whether and how they can be translated to London. If not why not? If so when does he report back and what is the plan?
And intelligence applies to our own experience in London. If TfL were to collate information on those types of lorry involved in these fatal accidents then they may find that a particular type of lorry, such as construction site trucks, are implicated. They will then know to impose restrictions on that particular type of vehicle. If it is articulated lorries then restrict those vehicles to particular routes and particular times. Similarly, collating information on time of accident will inform the debate about whether lorries should be banned at rush hour.
This is not a simple issue but it is an important one. The Mayor has rightly stuck his neck out in favour of promoting cycling in London, but must now deliver on his promises to make it safer.
This blog was written for and appears on www.londonremade.com
Thursday 21 November 2013
Cycling fatalities and police checkpoints
The appalling number of cyclist fatalities in London the last few days has provoked a constructive response from the Met, if not the Mayor.
Recognising that the majority of these accidents involve lorries, the police yesterday conducted a bike safety operation in central London, setting up checkpoints and stopping lorry drivers and cyclists. According to the Evening Standard the majority of lorry drivers committed one or more offences, mostly to do with driver’s hours. It seems that cyclists were also stopped in the interests of balanced PR, and warned or advised about wearing cycling helmets and headphones.
Most cyclists in London would accept that i) we have an image problem with many drivers in terms of safe riding and obeying the rules of the road and ii) that staying safe is something that we have some control over, so if the police are looking to highlight cyclist safety awareness as part of a campaign to clamp down on lorry driver offences then that is a pill we would surely swallow.
It does not help though that the Mayor chose to highlight the danger of cycling with headphones – which really only endanger the user - rather than the glaring and real danger of HGVs on London’s streets. He left the impression of wanting to create a debate over a side issue rather than delivering on his promises to tackle the problem of lorries killing and maiming cyclists.
Of course the police action may just be a one off, to give the impression of action in a very bad news week, and it remains to be seen how they follow it up. If they are serious about making a difference these check points should be expanded and repeated.
The police should also, in conjunction with TfL and London Boroughs, set up a unit to investigate all lorry-cyclist incidents involving death or serious injury and to collate data and intelligence on the cause of such accidents and how they can be avoided. There will be patterns, and lorry driver hours, on-vehicle safety features (or lack), segregation and driver education are likely to be issues that emerge. This sort of intelligent investigation should be standard if the issue of cycling fatalities is to be taken seriously.
Thursday 24 October 2013
The scourge of London's cyclists: left turning lorries
As a cyclist and claimant personal injury lawyer I have long been aware of the dangers posed by construction lorries in London, but this week brought a graphic reminder of the damage they can do.
Round the corner from my office in Camden I pulled up at a police cordon around a heavy goods truck and beneath the front axel was a mangled bike. The rider had been taken to hospital with serious injuries.
I cycle across that junction twice a day. It is an awkward and potentially dangerous one for cyclists, but not dissimilar to countless other junctions in London. The real menace is the presence there of a left turning 20 tonne truck.
It is well known to policy makers in the capital that turning trucks cause a disproportionate number of fatal and serious injuries to cyclists. Various safety initiatives are considered, researched or trialled, but nothing seems to happen and the carnage continues. It is time that the issue is taken seriously.
Why cannot the Mayor of London commit to some or all of the following measures and to implement them on a short and fixed timescale?:
1. Identify the category of vehicles most implicated in serious cyclist accidents and give them special treatment.
These are likely to be the four axel roll on roll off container lorries and tipper trucks used in construction. They are 16 or 20 tonne juggernauts, high sided and not easily manoeuvred through London's streets.
2. On-vehicle safety modifications.
For this high risk category of truck the current requirements of wide angle and blind spot mirrors are not enough. Cyclists on the near side are not noticed and may not be able to see the lorry's left indicator (assuming it is on, and in my experience it often isn't)
These trucks should also be fitted with technology that sounds a warning when they are turning left (rather like with some reversing lorries) and additional side indicator lights.
These lorries could also be fitted with a safety bar or skirting to protect cyclist from being dragged under the turning wheels (like the bars fitted to the rear and sides of some HGV/LGVs).
3. Identify those junctions most implicated with lorry/cycle serious injury accidents and find out in each case whether the road layout needs improving or on-road safety features added.
There has of course been some pan-London accident hot spot work which is ongoing, but what is needed is more targeted analysis: TfL should be sending an assessor to the scene of every major lorry/cyclist accident in London for recommendations on how to improve safety at that location.
It may be better segregation or signage or junction mirrors, or something else.
Some work has gone into keeping cyclists and lorries apart in London's streets, with cycle lanes and junction boxes, but in many case the road layout prevents full segregation.
The targeted approach to junctions above should allow for creative solutions at the real danger spots.
Camden Road has long been dubbed the Death Mile because of the number of fatalities: cyclists have not been protected from other vehicles. And at Camden Street-Delancey Street, the scene of this week's horrible accident, a 4 lane major road filters into a narrow side turning and the road layout there does nothing to protect cyclists from left turning lorries. This stuff is elementary.
3. Law reform.
Lorry drivers who cause death or serious injury are usually prosecuted, assuming there is sufficient evidence to prove the case on the criminal standard of proof.
But where the cyclist was killed or brain injured (and head injuries are relatively common in lorry/cyclist accidents) they cannot give evidence about how the accident happened, and so they or their families may not be able to prove their case. In these particular cases the civil burden of proof should switch to the driver so he is presumed to be at fault unless there is independent evidence to prove otherwise.
Secondly, the driver is usually prosecuted for the minor offence of careless driving, for which he will get only a fine and penalty points. The criminal law should be a deterrent in lorry/cyclist serious injury cases, so that lorry drivers take their responsibility towards vulnerable road users more seriously: they should face a period of disqualification if found guilty in these circumstances, with the consequences for their employment that will inevitably follow.
4. Education and training.
This is a two way street. Firstly the lorry drivers:
they should attend a mandatory certificated course dealing with safety around cyclists in London. With its proliferation of cyclists, its abundance of city centre major construction work, its network of old narrow streets and high volume of traffic, London is a special case and making sure that its cyclists are seen and avoided should not be left to chance.
Secondly, the cyclist. Bikers need to be on their guard against the particular dangers caused by left turning lorries. This means for instance not cycling up the inside of lorries stationary at junctions. It may seem obvious that the nearside of a lorry should be avoided at junctions, but in many cases the road layout positively points the cyclist in this direction by having a mini cycle lane before a cyclist box at the front of a junction.
The recent tragedy where a cyclist was killed by a lorry on a london cycling 'superhighway' was reportedly caused by a lorry turning left into a cyclist who was riding up to a cyclist junction box.
I have dealt with several cases of cyclist travelling up the inside at junctions; the injuries can be severe and liability for the accident may be shared.
Warning notices on the rear nearside of lorries and buses are prevalent now but perhaps a London wide local government awareness campaign would better highlight this danger particularly for the less experienced cyclist.
This problem just needs some joined up thinking. Over to the Mayor and his Cycling Czar.
Round the corner from my office in Camden I pulled up at a police cordon around a heavy goods truck and beneath the front axel was a mangled bike. The rider had been taken to hospital with serious injuries.
I cycle across that junction twice a day. It is an awkward and potentially dangerous one for cyclists, but not dissimilar to countless other junctions in London. The real menace is the presence there of a left turning 20 tonne truck.
It is well known to policy makers in the capital that turning trucks cause a disproportionate number of fatal and serious injuries to cyclists. Various safety initiatives are considered, researched or trialled, but nothing seems to happen and the carnage continues. It is time that the issue is taken seriously.
Why cannot the Mayor of London commit to some or all of the following measures and to implement them on a short and fixed timescale?:
1. Identify the category of vehicles most implicated in serious cyclist accidents and give them special treatment.
These are likely to be the four axel roll on roll off container lorries and tipper trucks used in construction. They are 16 or 20 tonne juggernauts, high sided and not easily manoeuvred through London's streets.
2. On-vehicle safety modifications.
For this high risk category of truck the current requirements of wide angle and blind spot mirrors are not enough. Cyclists on the near side are not noticed and may not be able to see the lorry's left indicator (assuming it is on, and in my experience it often isn't)
These trucks should also be fitted with technology that sounds a warning when they are turning left (rather like with some reversing lorries) and additional side indicator lights.
These lorries could also be fitted with a safety bar or skirting to protect cyclist from being dragged under the turning wheels (like the bars fitted to the rear and sides of some HGV/LGVs).
3. Identify those junctions most implicated with lorry/cycle serious injury accidents and find out in each case whether the road layout needs improving or on-road safety features added.
There has of course been some pan-London accident hot spot work which is ongoing, but what is needed is more targeted analysis: TfL should be sending an assessor to the scene of every major lorry/cyclist accident in London for recommendations on how to improve safety at that location.
It may be better segregation or signage or junction mirrors, or something else.
Some work has gone into keeping cyclists and lorries apart in London's streets, with cycle lanes and junction boxes, but in many case the road layout prevents full segregation.
The targeted approach to junctions above should allow for creative solutions at the real danger spots.
Camden Road has long been dubbed the Death Mile because of the number of fatalities: cyclists have not been protected from other vehicles. And at Camden Street-Delancey Street, the scene of this week's horrible accident, a 4 lane major road filters into a narrow side turning and the road layout there does nothing to protect cyclists from left turning lorries. This stuff is elementary.
3. Law reform.
Lorry drivers who cause death or serious injury are usually prosecuted, assuming there is sufficient evidence to prove the case on the criminal standard of proof.
But where the cyclist was killed or brain injured (and head injuries are relatively common in lorry/cyclist accidents) they cannot give evidence about how the accident happened, and so they or their families may not be able to prove their case. In these particular cases the civil burden of proof should switch to the driver so he is presumed to be at fault unless there is independent evidence to prove otherwise.
Secondly, the driver is usually prosecuted for the minor offence of careless driving, for which he will get only a fine and penalty points. The criminal law should be a deterrent in lorry/cyclist serious injury cases, so that lorry drivers take their responsibility towards vulnerable road users more seriously: they should face a period of disqualification if found guilty in these circumstances, with the consequences for their employment that will inevitably follow.
4. Education and training.
This is a two way street. Firstly the lorry drivers:
they should attend a mandatory certificated course dealing with safety around cyclists in London. With its proliferation of cyclists, its abundance of city centre major construction work, its network of old narrow streets and high volume of traffic, London is a special case and making sure that its cyclists are seen and avoided should not be left to chance.
Secondly, the cyclist. Bikers need to be on their guard against the particular dangers caused by left turning lorries. This means for instance not cycling up the inside of lorries stationary at junctions. It may seem obvious that the nearside of a lorry should be avoided at junctions, but in many cases the road layout positively points the cyclist in this direction by having a mini cycle lane before a cyclist box at the front of a junction.
The recent tragedy where a cyclist was killed by a lorry on a london cycling 'superhighway' was reportedly caused by a lorry turning left into a cyclist who was riding up to a cyclist junction box.
I have dealt with several cases of cyclist travelling up the inside at junctions; the injuries can be severe and liability for the accident may be shared.
Warning notices on the rear nearside of lorries and buses are prevalent now but perhaps a London wide local government awareness campaign would better highlight this danger particularly for the less experienced cyclist.
This problem just needs some joined up thinking. Over to the Mayor and his Cycling Czar.
Friday 28 June 2013
Eye to Eiffel
Commuter cycling is all very well but the same route every day becomes a bit of a hamster wheel and you yearn for some escape, some adventure, the wind in your hair on the open road.
Then there is the London-Paris challenge. Three days, 250 miles. Just you, the bike, and ride, ache, chafe, ride.
5 forty-something men, pooling varying talents of logistics and technology and varying degrees of fitness, but sharing boundless enthusiasm.
The training period involved 4 or 5 rides of 50 - 70 miles from and around London. Key for me was the confidence that I could cycle for more than 30 minutes (the length of my commute) without suffering injury or mechanical failure. A ride from North London to Northampton almost entirely along the A5 and with a stretch around Milton Keynes that felt in almost every way like the M1 was a useful base line in tedium.
Kit (such a small word hardly does it justice) was also a big issue in the days before the ride. How many pairs of wicking underwear were needed; how many pairs of cycling shorts: indeed how many pairs of padded cycling undershorts (no kidding)?
Then there was the issue of panniers and how much to take.
Like packing a hiking rucksack every item had to tip the gain/pain balance to justify inclusion, so airplane toothbrush Yes, shampoo No. Microtowel Yes, shoes No.
- Happily, cycle lanes are more common than I thought (at least in MK, London and Paris)
-Sunny only really gets sweaty when you stop.
-English countryside the best (Normandy a close second).
-Mates' ability to navigate in motion using iPhones and Map My Ride and battery packs = invaluable.
-Thrice round Portsmouth docks clocks a neat 100 miles for the day on GPS.
- Having a head-tail wind gives a swing of +/- 25 miles over a day
-Caen-Evreux involves some long, dull and windy stretches, a la A5
- Many cafe stops make for a longer but more enjoyable day
- No punctures/accidents = very good fortune
- One pair each of wicky pants and cycling shorts are sufficient
- A full day in Paris afterwards is not strictly necessary
- Peletons actually work in wind, with a little practice
-Cycling along the outside lane of the Seine embankment is frowned upon by French motorists
-For the price of a little muscle soreness, London- Paris is a brilliant and inexpensive way to combine adventure, exercise and friendship.
Now need to work on the next trip.....
Then there is the London-Paris challenge. Three days, 250 miles. Just you, the bike, and ride, ache, chafe, ride.
5 forty-something men, pooling varying talents of logistics and technology and varying degrees of fitness, but sharing boundless enthusiasm.
The training period involved 4 or 5 rides of 50 - 70 miles from and around London. Key for me was the confidence that I could cycle for more than 30 minutes (the length of my commute) without suffering injury or mechanical failure. A ride from North London to Northampton almost entirely along the A5 and with a stretch around Milton Keynes that felt in almost every way like the M1 was a useful base line in tedium.
Kit (such a small word hardly does it justice) was also a big issue in the days before the ride. How many pairs of wicking underwear were needed; how many pairs of cycling shorts: indeed how many pairs of padded cycling undershorts (no kidding)?
Then there was the issue of panniers and how much to take.
Like packing a hiking rucksack every item had to tip the gain/pain balance to justify inclusion, so airplane toothbrush Yes, shampoo No. Microtowel Yes, shoes No.
- Happily, cycle lanes are more common than I thought (at least in MK, London and Paris)
-Sunny only really gets sweaty when you stop.
-English countryside the best (Normandy a close second).
-Mates' ability to navigate in motion using iPhones and Map My Ride and battery packs = invaluable.
-Thrice round Portsmouth docks clocks a neat 100 miles for the day on GPS.
- Having a head-tail wind gives a swing of +/- 25 miles over a day
-Caen-Evreux involves some long, dull and windy stretches, a la A5
- Many cafe stops make for a longer but more enjoyable day
- No punctures/accidents = very good fortune
- One pair each of wicky pants and cycling shorts are sufficient
- A full day in Paris afterwards is not strictly necessary
- Peletons actually work in wind, with a little practice
-Cycling along the outside lane of the Seine embankment is frowned upon by French motorists
-For the price of a little muscle soreness, London- Paris is a brilliant and inexpensive way to combine adventure, exercise and friendship.
Now need to work on the next trip.....
Thursday 24 January 2013
Cycling Lawyer London intro post
I wear three hats (and a helmet) as a London cycling commuter and personal injury lawyer.
First, the lawyer bit. My job includes representing cyclists (or their families) who have been killed or injured in accidents caused -invariably -by a car, taxi, lorry or bus driver on London's streets.
Second, I am an avid cyclist and have biked to work through those streets every day for over 10 years. I love the exercise and hate the tube.
The lawyer bit can interfere with the cyclist bit - I know how easy it is for a car door carelessly opened or a lorry turning left at a junction to cause serious - sometimes devastating - injuries, so I try to leave the accidents in the office when I get on the bike. But forewarned is forearmed and I do now try to cycle more cautiously without getting too hesitant: defensive-aggressive if you will.
Which brings me to hat # 3. I am on the executive of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, an organisation that campaigns for the rights of accident victims. Those rights are being rapidly eroded by current government policy (of which more later), but for cyclists that means campaigning for improved road safety and for access to justice following injury.
Put those hats together and I hope to have something interesting to say in this blog.
The usual topics, and some others, spring to mind:
should I wear a cycling helmet? What if I don't?
Should I have several flashing lights on (front and back) at night?
Why is it wise to bring a claim before April 2013?
Is it so wrong to run a red light if turning left?
If I can't undertake or overtake stationary vehicles what's the point?
What happens if I am in an accident?
What if it was (partly) my fault?
Why aren't London cyclists better protected from lorries at junctions?
How safe is a Boris bike?
What is Boris doing about cyclist safety?
Is it really not insane to take up cycling in London?
Should my kids be allowed out on the road?
If I have an accident is it worth claiming? What would I claim for?
Are there any London accident black spots I should avoid?
What are the common causes of cyclist accidents?
Next instalment will cover one of these topics.
Any requests gratefully considered (apart from that one..).
First, the lawyer bit. My job includes representing cyclists (or their families) who have been killed or injured in accidents caused -invariably -by a car, taxi, lorry or bus driver on London's streets.
Second, I am an avid cyclist and have biked to work through those streets every day for over 10 years. I love the exercise and hate the tube.
The lawyer bit can interfere with the cyclist bit - I know how easy it is for a car door carelessly opened or a lorry turning left at a junction to cause serious - sometimes devastating - injuries, so I try to leave the accidents in the office when I get on the bike. But forewarned is forearmed and I do now try to cycle more cautiously without getting too hesitant: defensive-aggressive if you will.
Which brings me to hat # 3. I am on the executive of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, an organisation that campaigns for the rights of accident victims. Those rights are being rapidly eroded by current government policy (of which more later), but for cyclists that means campaigning for improved road safety and for access to justice following injury.
Put those hats together and I hope to have something interesting to say in this blog.
The usual topics, and some others, spring to mind:
should I wear a cycling helmet? What if I don't?
Should I have several flashing lights on (front and back) at night?
Why is it wise to bring a claim before April 2013?
Is it so wrong to run a red light if turning left?
If I can't undertake or overtake stationary vehicles what's the point?
What happens if I am in an accident?
What if it was (partly) my fault?
Why aren't London cyclists better protected from lorries at junctions?
How safe is a Boris bike?
What is Boris doing about cyclist safety?
Is it really not insane to take up cycling in London?
Should my kids be allowed out on the road?
If I have an accident is it worth claiming? What would I claim for?
Are there any London accident black spots I should avoid?
What are the common causes of cyclist accidents?
Next instalment will cover one of these topics.
Any requests gratefully considered (apart from that one..).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)