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

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

They agreed they 'should' too - mind you these are pro cycling MPs. I guess their strategy is baby steps to guide the non pro cycling MPs. Not ideal but chipping away at it is not all bad. Our SeeMeSaveMe campaign is certainly trying to achieve it London wide.

The trials that RBKC are doing are very different from this (NB they're trialling contraflow operation, not contraflow lanes).

I'll correct the Chief Inspector on your behalf. ;o)
I agree that with the political will we could skip a trial. But we have to work with what we've got. We don't rate on the scale. I'm certainly not a defeatist - I'm incredibly passionate about this. I just think small victories like a trial could help and if MPs are putting it on the table we should discuss it.

what I want to know is why someone who witnessed a fatal 'accident' couldn't drag themselves out of bed for the day to give their witness statement??? FLU??? I feel sick :(

I just think small victories like a trial could help and if MPs are putting it on the table we should discuss it.

Absolutely. This is where the course of action strays from the realm of ideas and sense and into politics. Unfortunately a course to governed action cannot escape this and being their realm, politicians do like to feel as if they are leading the political process. As they can't be circumvented they must be engaged. If it helps any they should be approached on three fronts. 1) Encourage them and engage because they are proprosing progress. 2) Objection because they aren't going far enough and the proposals have already been tried elsewhere and we support the findings. 3) Ego massage and encouragement to be bold and move up a level in "their proposals".

what I want to know is why someone who witnessed a fatal 'accident' couldn't drag themselves out of bed for the day to give their witness statement??? FLU??? I feel sick :(

Don't prejudge before you know. Unless you've witnessed the death of another person first hand, don't presume to know what it feels like and, to some people, the emotional toll of reliving that moment under examination, in a court of law, may be more than they are able to cope with. You may be able to brush of such stress without a second thought but I know that I would find it difficult and can understand how some may find it more than they can face up to. These are circumstances way beyond normal human experience and don't see it as fair to find them wanting, particularly if they are suffering from flu, an illness acknowledged to a have a broad range of symptoms ranging to the severe and temporarily debilitating.

You have got a point there and I hope I never have to witness such an event. I wasn't meaning to be judgmental. Perhaps 'flu' is not the best way to describe why your witness cannot make court.

The best way would be to be honest and flu may have broken the straw on the camels back. It was rather lax of the coroner's services to not get an written affadavit entered into the records on this eventuality.

yes you are right. I didn't think about it like that. Sorry.
so sad :(

fingers crossed for clarity and justice Eildih's case.

The part time ban would be difficult to enforce but not impossible.

There is currently a night-time ban on certain categories of LGVs in force in London.

A few weeks ago I wrote about my modest proposal on extending the HGV 'ban' to the morning rush hour:

http://thebikeshow.net/a-modest-proposal/

A few weeks ago I wrote about my modest proposal on extending the HGV 'ban' to the morning rush hour:

http://thebikeshow.net/a-modest-proposal/

I don't think it sounds radical... though I am hugely biased. It reads so logically and it would be so simple.

Ahh, to be Mayor for a week.

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.

Don't apologise for that long 'rant'! ALways great to see so many people like you, Oliver, Jack T etc putting your minds to this. The APPG meeting was pretty poor. I found the cycling group much more informed than the road traffic accident group. You around on Thu? Having a meeting with road peace at IC about the permit EDM.

I wouldn't try and advocate a ban on HGV use in London, it won't happen, at least not at a scale that would be bring fatalities right down. No government would have the balls to do it. We have a system in the UK where we are heavily dependant on our road network to transport goods. Our economy needs things to be moved, as quickly, cheaply, and effectively as possible. Using the roads is, in many cases, unavoidable. It is just not practical to think we can shift it on to rail or river, the industry has neither the money nor the inclination to do so. It would also take years and years to make the shift, cost a hell of a lot of money, and be very unpopular with a lot of people.

Special mirrors could easily be fitted to all new HGVs, maybe a warning movement sensor for the dreaded left-hooks. All current haulage/construction companies could buy the mirrors at a subsidised price.

Also, I think there is something to be said for some kind of bike training. Not at a level where we would need licenses or numberplates, but maybe something like the equivalent of a CBT for motorcycles, only far intensive.. There could be a number of incentives new riders to train, by giving out free cycle lights/HiViz, or something similar, or there could be free govt. safety packs given out with every new bike purchase.

I think focusing on small things like these.. reducing blind spots/training/lights, is a much better idea. It is far cheaper, far easier to implement, far easier to legislate for, and I believe would go a long way to reducing cyclist fatalities. Don't set your sights too high.

I think focusing on small things like these.. reducing blind spots/training/lights, is a much better idea. It is far cheaper, far easier to implement, far easier to legislate for, and I believe would go a long way to reducing cyclist fatalities.

And far less effective. Aim high.

heartbreaking account to read through.
be patient on the bikes folks. :)

@d0cA - just saying, be realistic. Bike deaths from HGVs are all quite avoidable with a bit of extra effort from both sides. They are mostly low speed left hooks. Special mirrors would go some way to eliminating the blind spot, any possibly doing away with the excuse that a fatality was 'in my blind spot' in a court of law. On the other side, training for brand new cyclists could do a world of good. The rider gains confidence and may be more likely to stay riding in the long run. Skills learnt can also be passed on to friends, familiy, their children, etc. Less effective, probably, but also far more likely to be implemented.

And far less effective. Aim high.

Far less effective for who? Banning lorries in London won't help people in Oxford, manchester or anywhere else in the rest of the country (or even outside central london), so in essence you're not solving the problem, making trucks safer for other road users should be the priority or you will still see people being killed.

whereas cars constitute around 90% of traffic.

You must mean 'motor traffic'. Traffic is people on foot, on bikes, etc., too. To use 'traffic' for 'motor traffic' only is as loaded as talking about 'accidents'.

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.

Please don't focus so much on fatalities only at the expense of serious injuries. I would also argue that no number of deaths prevented could conceivably be considered 'negligible'. The most central zone is by far the busiest place and by far the most logical place to start--measures can then 'radiate out'.

Please clarify 'less than 10% of fatalities occurred within the central London CCZ'--cyclist fatalities?, in which years, compared to the number of fatalities in London/the UK?

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.

Well, the answer to some of your questions is logistical laziness, to others the answer is official inaction or foot-dragging (e.g., about setting up freight consolidation centres), and to others that there is no way you can take all heavy good vehicles out of the streets, e.g. for carrying building materials to, or spoil away from, certain sites inaccessible by other means. But yes, there's a lot to play for.

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.

Give a politician a message and people to give it to and they'll be worth their weight in gold. Give them a complex, unemotional technical case, and they'll be completely hopeless. Reduce it to a couple of key facts that are not hopelessly reductionist or distorting and rely on them to be able to communicate it and influence accordingly. Of course Emily will talk about people in her constituency--much of her work as a constituency MP is with these people. It's only natural. All you have to do is enable politicians to play to their strengths.

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.

Not 'central' or 'local' but 'national' and 'regional' or 'local'. Changing the TSRGD is a DfT matter nationally, with the possible result that 'no entry except cyclists' may be permitted nationally soon. A London-wide lorry ban would be a matter for regional government (currently a mish-mash of GLA, TfL, London Councils, as well as erm, individual London Councils, and a couple of other agencies).

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.

As you (nearly) say--the flow data that's available is rubbish. Perhaps you'll be able to do a fuller comparison at some point with all traffic casualties? What appears to be happening in London, completely unscientifically, is a sustained increase in cycling combined with a lowering of the casualty rate. Fully reliable figures will have to wait until an improvement in modal share methodology for London.

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.

The LCC has consistently called for the timid T2025 Strategy to at least double its unambitious target of a 5% modal share by 2025 (or 400% growth from 2000 levels). We firmly believe that this is achievable, just as we correctly predicted that the timid 80% growth target for cycling by 2010 that was set in the 2004 London Cycling Action Plan (which, to be fair, was formally part of the Mayor's Transport Strategy that came out in 2001, and should have come out then), would be achieved way early--it was passed in 2005.

The 'cultural differences' thing is much overplayed, although it is certainly the case that British land use planning since the War has basically been more chaotic than Continental land use planning (although despite the greater American influence on the UK some aspects of Continental land use planning are certainly more American than over here, e.g. compare the small number of motorways in this country to a place like Germany, much as there are also loads of quasi-motorways in this country in the shape of massive A-roads, which are motorways in anything but name) and has left a destructive trail in its wake of terrible transport decisions.

In fact, the only major difference worth noting is the size and central pull of London. It's a supertanker with a very problematic political history that will take longer to turn around than a much smaller place like Brussels, but it is happening.

Let me introduce myself, I'm a former HGV1 (articulated) driver. I used to drive professionally for major supermarkets, as well as brief spells in transport management. I am also licensed to drive other vehicles. These days I am an avid cyclist and do 4,000-6,000 miles a year, so I can clearly see both sides of this problem.

To me the problem can be sorted out by better training and pay for drivers, the reduction and or elimination of agency drivers, and a double sided camera (much like a webcam) built into the nearside door. There are mirrors that do cover the areas, but the visibility is poor. Sensors would certainly help too.

To save money, and for convenience many companies use agency drivers. This is one of the biggest problems in the industry. Good drivers have an unstable work environment and there is a high likelihood of an incompetent driver getting behind the wheel.

I think lorry bans are an impractical idea. Large goods vehicles are the only way of supplying the public with products in anything like the amounts needed.

ZMC, in your personal opinion, is it entirely possible for you to drive in London and being aware of cyclists without those extra device (such as the double sided camera you mentioned).

Mirrors and cameras can solve the physical HGV blind spot(s) problem and I think they should be used so that the operators can see to all directions around their vehicles.

BUT they don't solve the psychological part of the HGV blind spots(s) problem. When a driver turns left he needs to have his focus forward to see where he is going and to see the pedestrians crossing the street he's about to enter. If the driver has his focus on a mirror or CSTV-screen looking backwards for cyclists, he doesn't look forward. There's only so much focus in a human head; if it's divided between more directions, the human will make more errors.

In addition to the undertaking cyclist not being seen problem, there's the possibility of priority rules and communications problems that can leave a brother/sister dead under the wheels. OK, the lorry driver has managed to see the undertaking cyclist, now he has to understand that the cyclist has a right of way and is about to use it. That means that the cyclist should make clear he's going to continue forward. But good cyclists don't undertake HGV's flashing left. Is that to be changed, so that HGV-drivers will adapt? Cyclists too will adapt to perceived/real HGV driver yield rate to undertaking cyclists and that means more cyclists taking the risky route. Irresponsible "it's not the cyclists' fault"-campaigns will lead to more righteous brothas asserting their undertaking "right of way". The only sustainable solution is that cyclists learn to travel in tandem with HGV's at each point where a left turn is possible.

ZMC, in your personal opinion, is it entirely possible for you to drive in London and being aware of cyclists without those extra device (such as the double sided camera you mentioned).

It is perfectly possible to drive a large goods vehicle in London safely. On most or all large vehicles there is a proximity mirror (which looks down from above the passenger window at the front wheel), and two mirrors on the passenger side, one is large and one is a smaller convex mirror to give a wide field of view, and one large one on the drivers side. A good driver with good eyesight can see out of these mirrors sufficiently to be safe provided the lighting or weather conditions are favorable. Sensors and cameras would really help, especially if the weather is bad. I was trained to check mirrors as much as I looked forward, so checking an LCD screen would not take much getting used to for a good driver. In fact most drivers, myself included, would live in fear of hurting, or worse killing or injuring anyone. It is the last thing that a professional driver would ever want to do. I would leave at least two meters when overtaking a cyclist, and I would watch them though carefully. I drove goods vehicles from 1996-2002.

Some tips for cyclists dealing with goods vehicles:***

1. Some trucks below 7.5 tonnes are driven by people with car licenses, these drivers may have insufficient training or experience for their vehicle and may not be checking their mirrors as often as they should be.
   
2. Drivers of rigid trucks up to 26 tonnes, may be working on a 'multi-drop' basis and are under time pressure or checking A-Z or using a cellphone, again may not be paying as much attention as they should. Skip and tipper drivers may also be under time pressure.
   
3. Wet, freezing, foggy weather or early morning or late evening light can effect how much a driver can see, especially out of his/her mirrors.
   
4. When behind a truck look directly in the truck's mirrors, you may even see the driver see you (if she/he's an aware driver). If you can't see a mirror or the driver in it, you are in a danger zone. Only pass a truck if it is stationary on the inside, if it is moving DO NOT UNDERTAKE it.
   
5. Be aware that articulated trucks will swing out strangely on the road to go around corners. NEVER attempt to pass a turning lorry.
   
6. Do report bad truck drivers, remember to quote their registration number through the 'well driven?' and other schemes, this helps weed out bad drivers, or those who are becoming complacent.
   
   

Some ideas for safer roads in major cities, as regards large good vehicles. Especially with growing numbers of cyclists:

1. Put sensors and/or cameras on the doors of trucks.
   
2. Use left hand drive trucks for city deliveries (right hand drive for Europe).
   
3. Improve training for drivers.
   
4. Weed out poor/incompetent drivers.
   
5. Remove time pressure for all drivers.
   
6. More regular and accurate eye tests for all age groups of drivers.
   

ZMC, good post. Have a look at the LCC's HGV campaign here--Charlie (who's on here) is also a former HGV driver:

http://www.no-more-lethal-lorries.org.uk/

We have a five-point plan of what we're calling for. (Plus point six to warn cyclists to stay out of the danger spot.)

Oliver
LCC

1. When behind a truck look directly in the truck's mirrors, you may even see the driver see you (if she/he's an aware driver). If you can't see a mirror or the driver in it, you are in a danger zone. Only pass a truck if it is stationary on the inside, if it is moving DO NOT UNDERTAKE it.
   

Only pass a truck if it is stationary on the inside, **and there is no possibility of it moving while you're passing it.

**Just to make it absolutely clear, like.