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

Hi, a couple of points I'd like to pick up, but I'm actually not very good at doing the multiquoting etc so a bit of a ramble instead....

First, please do not speak about "accidents." as Oliver Schick already said, the word "accident" is a loaded word. Instead, we should be be talking about "collisions," "crashes," "injuries," "deaths," and so on. The phrase now used in the public health world is "injury prevention" (vis, the medical journal of the same name).

Second, thanks to Ufrasia for the stats - for those who weren't there, these are correct: approximately 43% of cyclist fatalities that were investigated were caused by freight vehicles greater than 3.5 tonnes maximum laden weight - the same percentage as caused by cars. Yet, according to data published by Transport for London, only about 4% of vehicles on the road are freight vehicles (including those less than 3.5 tonnes - so in fact the comparable figure is even smaller than 4%) whereas cars constitute around 90% of traffic.

Furthermore, I disagree that it is of any use to use the congestion charging zone (CCZ) cameras to ban lorries (or regulate them) in the city centre. Why? For a start, less than 10% of fatalities occurred within the central London CCZ, so the number of deaths prevented would almost certainly be negligible - because, as long as there are lorries (indeed, as long as there is motorised transport), cyclists are going to die.

I would suggest that the only way of dealing with the problem is to remove all heavy goods vehicles from urban roads. I do not think this is unrealistic: there are plenty of alternate ways of getting goods etc into London - for example, rail and or river (why not use the underground system outside of peak time periods? Why not use other underground rail systems such as that owned and operated by the Royal Mail? Why not make greater use of the River Thames and port/docking facilities in the City? Why not use smaller vehicles such as the electric vans now being brought into use by companies such as UPS, tescos, etc?). I would also suggest that larger freight vehicles could potentially be used in the future if the cabs were redesigned. Redesigns should ensure that the cabs are lower down with improved vision - such as those found in buses, which are at a much closer level to an ordinary car - and which are purposefully designed to maximise visibility.

Regarding political process and the influence of MPs - I have no faith in the process and believe that it was token-ism that made those particular MPs attend the APPG last week. Sorry to be so cynical, but as the first guy said, we were preaching to the converted (i.e. those who already have an interest in the subject of preventing needless injuries on the roads); it is those who were not present we really need to get to. As for Thornberry - well, she happens to be the local MP of my parents and she entirely ratified the position that I consider her being: one of Blair's bimbos. Yep, she spoke very eloquently and emotionally for about 10-15 minutes, but only after turning up 50 minutes late and not having listened to anything that had been said previously. Nor did she acknowledge a single bit of scientific evidence but entirely went on about various people in her constituency that she knew/knew of.

As for Boris: again, tokenism. As has been pointed out in numerous threads and posts on this forum, he may talk the talk but he certainly doesn't walk the walk - or ride the bike (not literally, I guess, as his escapades are well documented in the media). Someone (Oliver I think) suggested that part-time lorry bans are more reminiscent of the GLC than the GLA and I take that to be, in part, a nod in the direction of Ken LIvingstone. While I think that power corrupts and there's no such thing as a good politician, he certainly was less bad and the changes that we've seen in London's transport since the beginning of this decade are to a large degree down to his efforts in City Hall.

I'd also say that politics is confusing: overlaps and differences between what is the remit of City Hall and what is the remit of central government (i.e. the Houses of Parliament) are difficult to decipher for most of us. The recent (I believe - or are they upcoming?) trials with cyclists going the "wrong way" down one way streets is central - but banning lorries is local.

On the subject of part-time lorry bans, I do agree it is a step in the right direction - so not to be dismissed (although as said above I would go the whole way and use alternatives). My suggestion (again, not based on any fact here) would be to only allow them between the hours of 8 and 12 at night, as that is when there are fewest cyclists on the road. However, I did like the suggestion of using the time period of the middle of the day - although I suspect this would mean the fatal incidents disproportionately affect couriers and other "disposable" members of society - i.e. not the middle classes who shout loudest and are more likely to be using the road during the commuter periods at either side of the day.

Another comment. The data about who uses the road, the hows and whens are extremely poor and unreliable. With my co-researchers, I found no evidence of a decrease in cyclist fatalities, despite an apparent almost doubling of cyclists on the road since 2001. This is most likely due to the low number of fatalities that we already have - but also due to the low number of cyclists - remember, a doubling of 0.75% means that there is still only 1.5% of the traffic being cyclists, whereas a doubling of 5% would mean a far greater number in absolute terms. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Finally, the thing I find most abhorrent about the whole current debate on cycling in London is that we are stuck in this idea that the British "need to undergo a cultural shift" and that we "are not the same as Europeans" - both sentiments expressed by Emily Thornberry at Parliament last week. What we should be doing - as London - is signing up to initiatives such as the Charter of Brussels that was launched earlier this year. This aims "to set a target of at least 15% for the share of cycling in the modal split of trips for the year 2020 and of further growth if this target is already achieved". As mentioned above, the current level for London is less than 2% so we would have some way to go - but given that Brussels increased from 1% to 5% between 2001 and 2006 (and, I used to live in Brussels in the late 1990s and the traffic was furious!) this is not totally unachievable. Indeed, it is far better to have aimed high and to keep on struggling to achieve that lofty aim, than to aim low and sit back and relax once you have got there when in fact you could have done much better.

Well, sorry for the super long rant. I hope it contributes something to the discussion. I would also encourage people to respond to the current Transport Strategy consultation, even if I'm cynical about it - better to have tried and failed than not to have even given yourselves a chance.