HGVs/lorries/cyclists: Inquest into death of Meryem Ozekman

I was teaching my son and daughter about this topic a couple of weeks ago - she's doing cycling proficiency stuff at school and they live just next to a builders merchants. The people who work there were really kind in letting us sit each of the kids in the cab of the lorry, while the other pretended to cycle up alongside. Hopefully they now understand the blindspots.

I tried to explain the turning circles of LWB vehicles but I'm not sure they fully understood, but I did get them to accept the simple rule that if you never get ahead of the rear axle, you can't get run over/closed off by a lorry.

For this lady to have been run over the way she was, she had to have been ahead of the rear axle. And whilst she was in the position, she fell, for reasons unknown. Which reminds me again of my children and a crash one of them had a few weeks ago. Heading through a gap between bollards, they were paying so much attention to missing the one on the right, they clipped their left hand on the other bollard and fell over. I did exactly that as a kid - but only once, it hurt like a fuck, skinned my knuckles and I never did it again. But what if you've never done that? Now, this is pure speculation but, how does "an experienced cyclist" just fall over? Well if you're ahead of the rear axle, so the lorry suddenly start to close the gap on you, I would (and I expect we all would) be paying attention to the side of the lorry closing in fast. If that meant you then clipped you left hand on the railings there at Elephant roundabout, it's not unreasonable to see the cyclist's front wheel suddenly flipping left, which pitches them off the bike to the right and unfortunately straight under the lorry's wheels they were trying to avoid.

Given that there were questions earlier in the thread in the nature of "how could she just 'fall off'", I just wanted to point out one possibility, which I've seen before. It's unfortunate, but any "coming together" between a ped or a cyclist and an HGV is likely to have a seriously bad outcome.

The truck was still too close, no?

"Counsel: How big was the gap between the lorry and the kerb?
MJ: There was a considerable gap.
Counsel: looking at the drawing, was the lorry further than a metre from
the kerb?
MJ: Yes, a bit more than a metre. Yes."

Only a bit more than a metre between truck and kerb? That's not enough. If a bike is riding 30cm from the kerb and they have a 2m tall 'fall zone'.. that's nowhere near far enough away.

I can't work it out in the report - did the truck pass her or did she ride up the inside of the truck?

Tea Bee
Good luck teaching your children. Please tell them that they can also get run over from behind by a truck, even when in front of it and on the right. Even when travelling on a straight road with no turn offs.
See Eilidh Cairns, Anthony in Reading, and Im sure much more.
How can you stop one coming up behind you ? Fix mirrors on bikes and leg it when one comes for you?
Ask you builder merchants to get signed up to FORS and speak to the CVEU for advice before Boris Johson shuts it down (March next year). Report immediately any dodgy looking lorries. Ask them to get their drivers to cycle for a mile down the road with a truck coming up behind them too.
Good luck and well done for letting your children cycle.

Reading between the lines of the driver's account of events prior to the collision, i'd guess she was undertaking the lorry, which was making slow progress due to the buses that had been ahead of it and the general level of traffic.

Was there actually sufficient space for her to pass the lorry as it turned? That's my first question from reading the transcript. The taxi driver witness gives the gap as 'a bit more than a metre'. What stage in the turn does this refer to? The lorry driver is asked about about his separation from the curb at the start of the turn, and replies 2-3 feet. For the rear wheels to maintain that separation thoughout the turn, the cab would have to move away from the kerb (either by initially turning to the right, or following a shallower curve than the kerb) then move back during the main part of the turn.

So either the rear of the lorry came closer to the kerb during the turn, or the cab moved out from the kerb and then back during the turn.

Was she actually blocked in, jostled by the trailer, or caught out by the lorry cab moving left?

It seems the lorry didn't move much after the collision, so presumably the pictures of its final position would make this clear.

To turn a bike suddenly, you need space on the side you are turning away from to counter-steer. Simply turning left without first leaning left would result in you falling off to the right of the bike. I'm not suggesting she did this deliberately, but finding herself with no space to counter-steer and with the lorry forcing her to move left, simply trying to keep the bike upright and out of contact with the lorry could perhaps have that effect.

I have had cars turn left across me and i stayed upright by leaning against their bodywork, but lorrys have large open spaces under them which would make this much harder.

Lorrys with big gaps between the back of the tractor unit and the trailer wheels are already supposed to be fitted with bars to keep cars out of that space. Has anyone suggested fitting more comprehensive skirts to keep cyclists out too?

I want to understand and learn from this, but i'll remove this post if people would rather i didn't speculate.

Oooo, that's really hard to call Hippy. Did she undertake? Was the truck too close because it had traffic on the outside and the driver, who has only one set of eyes, was busy avoiding them and cut her a tiny bit closer than they should? There is that issue of LWB vehicles having to go wide and cut in, just because of how their turning circle works. Did she "fill that gap" as the road safety videos used to warn us about? Why wasn't she in the middle of the lane?

I'd like to keep lorries and cyclists apart. At the very least during rush hour.

But that day isn't today. And until it is, we have to ride really carefully, because it's us who get hurt, not the lorry driver. I want the law changed. But I also want the hundreds of cyclists I see with their left foot on the kerb at crossroads to be four feet further to the right and cyclists ignoring what the Highway Code used to say and following the same line as cars through roundabouts.

To me the report leaves too many unanswered questions (was the lorry indicating and for how long, what about the road layout etc etc). But in regards to undertaking etc, the driver (assuming it's the truth) said the first time he saw high vis in the mirror he stopped, if he'd have over taken her then he would have seen the high vis before and hence it wouldn't have been the first time. But that's just how i read it and is probably making more assumptions.

A distressing inquest, mainly for the lack of good evidence (not unusual, by all accounts) and the resulting lack of clarity as to what happened. Proceedings also seem extremely brief.

As for Ufrasia's question, 'accidents' are understood according to the definition given by the coroner: 'An accident is the consequence of an unintended act.'

It is very interesting to try and understand this. Clearly, the act of killing was unintended. There was no corresponding act such as 'being killed' on the part of the victim, as being killed is passive and not an act. However, there were other actions involved. It was not unintended that the lorry driver turned left; he intended to turn left. Likewise, the cyclist's movements were intended by her.

(I'm not going to speculate on what happened, nor accept the finding of the inquest as given, as I'm not convinced by the evidence that she fell of her own accord rather than being 'closed in on' by the lorry in the turning manoeuvre. The first witness was really too far away (150 yards) and the second witness did not see the collision/crash/fall.)

When you narrow it down further, after these intended acts comes an unintended coincidence--an event resulting from the two separately caused actions here, which in itself is fully caused. So, the 'accident' here would be better described as 'the consequence of an unintended coincidence'. (Not the/an 'unintended consequence', as the coincidence was itself unintended, and no consequences arising from it were therefore either intended or unintended--the question simply doesn't arise.)

Now, it is clear that if each of these tragic incidents is considered in isolation, the occurrences can often, indeed, be described as accidental--e.g., neither party intended the consequences of the coincidence and neither wanted them to happen.

However, there are a number of reasons why people, including many campaigners, object to the use of the word 'accident' for road traffic collisions. Firstly, it is a avery stretchy word that can even be applied to a crash in which a speeding motorist 'accidentally' kills a vulnerable road user--i.e., while he may have been speeding, he of course didn't intend to kill.

Also, the overall picture is anything but accidental. In fact, failing powerful interventions, such as, for instance, a part-time lorry ban in Central London, it is depressingly predictable what is going to happen year in, year out.

Most importantly, if these crashes continue to be thought of as 'accidents', that suggests that they are somehow events that occur outside the traffic system and that the traffic system doesn't need fixing--as the 'unintended' nature of these accidents shows, 'they are not built into the system' (when of course they are).

That the intention not to reign in road danger exists somewhere much higher up the food chain in transport policy, giving priority to volumes of motor traffic, fast movement of freight by road, etc. (as reducing road danger at source is not perceived to be conducive to motor traffic), is not something that comes to the surface in limited inquest proceedings such as this.

Of course the driver has a vivid interest in thinking of this incident as an 'accident' (and I'm not saying that this crash could not be described as such)--who'd want to bear all the consequences of a systematically wrong transport policy on their shoulders, or of the stupid design of the Elephant and Castle?--, but 'accident' after 'accident' adds up to a false perception of the big picture, which does need changing. It is much better to speak of 'incidents' and 'crashes', as these words are more neutral and less emotionally charged, and if the right practical consequences were drawn from this different terminology, perhaps we might start to see some change. All to campaign for.

Thanks Oliver.

...Also, the overall picture is anything but accidental. In fact, failing powerful interventions, such as, for instance, a part-time lorry ban in Central London, it is depressingly predictable what is going to happen year in, year out....

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have been able to 'test' the contra-flow cycle path idea. I'd like to ask another borough to do the same by testing a part-time (peak hour) ban on lorries. What do you all think? I know it will be terribly problematic but worth a shot. I've just chatted to a police CI about it and he thought a local bye-law could possibly be invoked. it would be local authority enforcement therefore there would be no problem about trying to get Statute changed.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have been able to 'test' the contra-flow cycle path idea. I'd like to ask another borough to do the same by testing a part-time (peak hour) ban on lorries. What do you all think? I know it will be terribly problematic but worth a shot. I've just chatted to a police CI about it and he thought a local bye-law could possibly be invoked. it would be local authority enforcement therefore there would be no problem about trying to get Statute changed.

I wouldn't have thought banning HGVs in one borough would be enough to prove the point. Having said that, I'm 100% behind it.

Maybe if we did it in a problem borough. Lambeth? Islington?

Basically if there wasn't room for her to fall, which there clearly wasn't, it was too close. I think part of the problem here is an acceptance of the status quo of a cyclist isn't allowed the same amount of space as a car. We need the same amount of space as a car to fall over.

On the second question, sounds like a bit of both.

The policewomen sounded pretty convinced that she fell without contact, I wonder why given the evidence apparently available.

The truck was still too close, no?

I can't work it out in the report - did the truck pass her or did she ride up the inside of the truck?

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have been able to 'test' the contra-flow cycle path idea. I'd like to ask another borough to do the same by testing a part-time (peak hour) ban on lorries. What do you all think? I know it will be terribly problematic but worth a shot. I've just chatted to a police CI about it and he thought a local bye-law could possibly be invoked. it would be local authority enforcement therefore there would be no problem about trying to get Statute changed.

Part-time lorry bans are achievable, but neither does there need to be a trial (it is clear that it would be sensible and that it would work, and all it would require would be some planning work with freight operators, also on the possibility of granting a small number of exemption licences for urgent case in which lorries would still need access), nor would it make sense to do this in only one borough (there is no reason to benefit only one borough at the expense of those around it).

It's been done before and it can be done again. The key question is whether the Mayor will develop any political will to pursue such an initiative. Partial lorry bans are a type of policy that is associated more closely with the old GLC than the current GLA.

I can't work it out in the report - did the truck pass her or did she ride up the inside of the truck?

That's precisely from the moments that are missing from the evidence. None of the witnesses are clear, no camera footage of the incident was available, and the evidence is completely insufficient to draw conclusions. (I include in this that I find the inquest's conclusion unwarranted as it stands, at least based on how the evidence is presented in Barry's transcript.)

[QUOTE=Oliver Schick;1058128](I'm not going to speculate on what happened, nor accept the finding of the inquest as given, as I'm not convinced by the evidence that she fell of her own accord rather than being 'closed in on' by the lorry in the turning manoeuvre.

Surely you're speculating by by offering an alternative?[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think so. It is just that the logical opposite of her falling off of her own accord would be that she was 'closed in on', with the lorry eventually brushing her (this is a common occurrence in such crashes). These are merely the two basic possibilities of what could have happened--there are no other possibilities which could make it speculation to mention two, but not the others. I'm not saying either is what happened.

Although taking trucks out of central London seems like a good idea, it's not really solving the problem. There have been cyclist killed in the outter boroughs, and others killed outside of rush hour. In fact isn't rush hour safer due to the number of cyclists on the road at that time?

So if you restrict the times truck are allowed in, won't it just make it more dangerous to cycle in the city at those times the trucks are allowed in, as the same amount of journeys will still be made but in a shorter time frame? Or a lot of the loads are switched to smaller vehicles, but using far more journeys, e.i 1 truck = 5 vans (i'm guessing here), although i've no idea if this would be safer or not.

I think part of the problem here is an acceptance of the status quo of a cyclist isn't allowed the same amount of space as a car. We need the same amount of space as a car to fall over.

I think the Highway Code states that when passing one should give as much space to a cyclist as you would to any other vehicle.

kidboy - have to agree. I think it would make it more dangerous during the off peak hours... Night time deliveries could be brought back, but then we have to work around noise complaints.

Oliver - During the House of Commons meeting the other day several of the MPs talked about doing this. They thought a part time ban in test boroughs would demonstrate that it can help reduce collisions. They said this is why Kensington and Chelsea are testing contra-flow lanes. A precedent area makes it easier for them to do the same elsewhere. I don't think it would be pointless.

That's precisely from the moments that are missing from the evidence. None of the witnesses are clear, no camera footage of the incident was available, and the evidence is completely insufficient to draw conclusions. (I include in this that I find the inquest's conclusion unwarranted as it stands, at least based on how the evidence is presented in Barry's transcript.)

Camera footage would have shown the exact order of events (IF it was correctly positioned but this isn't ever going to happen)
Would that have helped lay blame? If the nature of the junction meant the driver couldn't see directly behind him due to the road sweep, he clearly stated the movement of all the vehicles on the road ahead; the road he was pulling into

A glance in all the mirrors, a second check ahead and then the brief second he pulled away and that’s it; he has killed someone!
What did he do wrong? From the time he glanced in his side mirror, checked his drivers mirror and looked ahead to pull away a cyclist could have started to move up the inside into a dangerous position.

Yes. It's simply not possible to keep an eye on all of them as well as the road ahead.

There was no record of him being a dangerous driver, his history was clean and his lorry was all in order with all correct legally required security fittings.

I find the debate - Did she fall OR was she pulled struck, a moot one.
It is a terrible accident, the inside of an articulated lorry, on a junction, as its pulling away is the most dangerous place on the road. When I am on the pavement I take a step back as they pass.
You get yourself in that position no a bike and it's an insufficient glance over your shoulder, a lose strap, a man hole cover, a nodding motion to far that can kill you.
For the driver it's a split second glance, a distraction from another road user, the rattle of his cab or a second glance to his exit junction that leaves him living with death on his hands.

Nobody can win, I would rather a responsible HGV driver out on the roads extra vigilant, and warning other HGV drivers, than I would want to see him striped of his livelihood and charged guilty of killing a cyclist in a no win situation.

Oliver’s point about the classification is spot on, it will not get the attention it deserves without it a more fitting label. But the focus needs to be on the road layouts, HGV traffic, HGV security measures and suitability of vehicle for London traffic and then the actions of the driver. Which you are effectively trying to prove if the driver had chance to see the cyclist and took that chance… I can’t see this being proved with any evidence sadly

I'm glad to hear part-time bans are being discussed seriously, here at least. It doesn't seem long ago that many people here poo-pooed the suggestion.

The part time ban would be difficult to enforce but not impossible. There would need to be extra signage and routes through where the vehicles would still be allowed in case there were problems.

But there would still have to be exceptions such as bin lorries etc which sort of makes it a reduction not a ban IMO. But I think it may be a better discussion in another thread, maybe.

Although taking trucks out of central London seems like a good idea, it's not really solving the problem. There have been cyclist killed in the outter boroughs, and others killed outside of rush hour. In fact isn't rush hour safer due to the number of cyclists on the road at that time?

The fact remains that the vast majority of people travel during the rush hour, and a disproportionately high percentage of casualties occur during the rush hour. Stress levels are at their highest then.

So if you restrict the times truck are allowed in, won't it just make it more dangerous to cycle in the city at those times the trucks are allowed in, as the same amount of journeys will still be made but in a shorter time frame? Or a lot of the loads are switched to smaller vehicles, but using far more journeys, e.i 1 truck = 5 vans (i'm guessing here), although i've no idea if this would be safer or not.

kidboy - have to agree. I think it would make it more dangerous during the off peak hours... Night time deliveries could be brought back, but then we have to work around noise complaints.

Of course, no-one's suggesting it would be a silver bullet solution. There would still be casualties outside the ban times. There would still be casualties outside Central London, etc. There would certainly be a sort of displacement effect that you describe. On the plus side, it is likely that some non-full load lorry trips would be replaced by trips with smaller vehicles (if a full lorry journey was required, it would be unlikely to be economical to replace that journey with five separate trips made with smaller vehicles--it would most likely be made at a different time). Road danger would certainly be reduced in the busiest times.

There is also an element at the moment of logistical laziness. Just like people make superfluous car trips (under two miles, no load or passengers carried, not made by a person with mobility difficulties--easily cycled in under ten minutes), so hauliers also make lorry trips that could be avoided. By targeting the type of vehicle, they can be persuaded to put more effort into planning their itineraries, leading to a degree of 'traffic evaporation'. Etc.--there are a number of other advantages, such as less noise and particle pollution.

Oliver - During the House of Commons meeting the other day several of the MPs talked about doing this. They thought a part time ban in test boroughs would demonstrate that it can help reduce collisions. They said this is why Kensington and Chelsea are testing contra-flow lanes. A precedent area makes it easier for them to do the same elsewhere. I don't think it would be pointless.

To clarify: The reason why I think it's pointless is because they should just move ahead with introducing it London-wide. They talk about a trial because they don't see the political will. That is something that campaigning can support or generate.

The trials that RBKC are doing are very different from this (NB they're trialling contraflow operation, not contraflow lanes). As the 'no entry except cycles' signage requires official DfT approval (and then inclusion in the next edition of the TSRGD), a trial is most certainly required and not possible on a large area basis.

There are no such legal barriers in the way for a London-wide part-time lorry ban. Nighttime lorry bans have been done before, the statutory instruments exist, so given the political will, they could do it.

kidboy - have to agree. I think it would make it more dangerous during the off peak hours... Night time deliveries could be brought back, but then we have to work around noise complaints.
.

It wouldn't just be noise though, some of the most dangerous vehicles are those associate with building sites (dump trucks, cement mixers, scaffold), so potentially it could mean whole building sites going onto night work, i'm no enginner but i know cement has a set time to be mixed and laid, then that will knock on the the cement works too. Also that industry may argue that it is already the most dangerous industry to work in and forcing it to work at night would increase the risk to it's workers etc.

It wouldn't just be noise though, some of the most dangerous vehicles are those associate with building sites (dump trucks, cement mixers, scaffold), so potentially it could mean whole building sites going onto night work, i'm no enginner but i know cement has a set time to be mixed and laid, then that will knock on the the cement works too. Also that industry may argue that it is already the most dangerous industry to work in and forcing it to work at night would increase the risk to it's workers etc.

That is a good point, but as I mentioned above, such bans always need justified exemptions.

Surely it would make a difference to specify that lorries could move around London from 10am until 4pm- that way time sensitive things such as cement, fish etc can be delivered but lorries are no longer part of rush hour trafic?

i.e. total ban between 6-10am and from 16.00 until say 20.00

Surely it would make a difference to specify that lorries could move around London from 10am until 4pm- that way time sensitive things such as cement, fish etc can be delivered but lorries are no longer part of rush hour trafic?

i.e. total ban between 6-10am and from 16.00 until say 20.00

I think that even that wouldn't be nessecary to have a meaningful impact on accidents and fatalities. Perhaps in zone 1, out in the outer zones you could have it at 7-10 and 16-19. You're main aim really is to limit HGV activity on roads commonly used by vulnerable road users where the availble space is irretrievably limited. The good thing about the former is that the C-charge equipment could easily be modified to aid enforcement.