# Rider down in Roehampton, looking like another death 15.11.13



## gaz (15 Nov 2013)

Reports on twitter about another rider down with a collision with a HGV.
http://news.radiojackie.com/2013/11...ews&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## hopless500 (15 Nov 2013)

Oh lord, not another...... this is escalating.
So sad.


----------



## gaz (15 Nov 2013)

6 in 10 days in London. 7 in 10 days in the UK


----------



## Sittingduck (15 Nov 2013)

FFS


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Nov 2013)

gaz said:


> 6 in 10 days in London. 7 in 10 days in the UK


That's too many, far too many. I feel for those poor cyclists families.


----------



## Whiskey88 (15 Nov 2013)

Some of us are trying to find a secondary source as we speak. One person on twitter is saying it happened on Danebury Avenue, outside some shops, but that's all anyone is coming up with so far...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (15 Nov 2013)

Whiskey88 said:


> Some of us are trying to find a secondary source as we speak. One person on twitter is saying it happened on Danebury Avenue, outside some shops, but that's all anyone is coming up with so far...


I haven't found one. So far. Not much I can say any more, other than condolences to the family and I hope she died quickly.

EDIT: the original source has changed the article. Not a cyclist, not that it changes the loss or


> the pain:
> A woman has died after allegedly being hit by a lorry in Roehampton.
> 
> The incident happened at 4 o'clock this afternoon, and the victim was pronounced dead at the scene.
> ...


----------



## ManiaMuse (15 Nov 2013)

Doesn't seem to be much info on this.

Someone on LFGSS says it may have been a pedestrian rather than a cyclist. http://www.lfgss.com/thread117458.html

Another poster was apparently given the same version of events by 5 different people that the victim one of 3 people sat on the back of a scaffolding lorry who fell out going over a speedbump and hit the ground at speed (could explain arrest for dangerous driving /speculation)


----------



## User33236 (15 Nov 2013)

It has now appeared on ITV web site 

http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2013-11-15/woman-killed-in-collision-with-a-lorry/

Doesn't add much to the story. A sad loss either way :-(


----------



## MattyKo (15 Nov 2013)

Just viewed the Newsnights' coverage concerning the spike in number of cyclists fatalities in London. Chris Ames (probably an incorrect recollection of the cycle campaigners name), asked us to draw comparisons with Paris - *"*which has seen no fatalities of cyclist within the city*"*. *"*The majority of fatalities are due to cyclists -v- HGV*"* Paris restricts HGVs' access to the city to outside peak times. Therefore cyclists are not competing for the limited road space with HGV during their journeys to work. A suggestion he said the mayor would be able to initiate immediately.


----------



## gaz (16 Nov 2013)

MattyKo said:


> Just viewed the Newsnights' coverage concerning the spike in number of cyclists fatalities in London. Chris Ames (probably an incorrect recollection of the cycle campaigners name), asked us to draw comparisons with Paris - *"*which has seen no fatalities of cyclist within the city*"*. *"*The majority of fatalities are due to cyclists -v- HGV*"* Paris restricts HGVs' access to the city to outside peak times. Therefore cyclists are not competing for the limited road space with HGV during their journeys to work. A suggestion he said the mayor would be able to initiate immediately.


Mark Ames, does i bike london blog.


----------



## Kies (16 Nov 2013)

These construction lorries could be banned from 8am-10am and between 4pm-6pm, i.e peak rush hours


----------



## spen666 (16 Nov 2013)

Kies said:


> These construction lorries could be banned from 8am-10am and between 4pm-6pm, i.e peak rush hours


that would just make the roads less safe for those who commute outside those hours!

there is no action without reaction


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

spen666 said:


> that would just make the roads less safe for those who commute outside those hours!
> 
> there is no action without reaction


Ok, I know that Paris, particularly central Paris, is not in a permanent state of being knocked down and rebuilt in the same way that London is, but the virtual absence of cycling fatalities, even with Vélib hire bikes on the streets, may be connected to the restrictions cited below. Perhaps there are other restrictions that apply to HGVs in Paris - I don't know - as well as a different us-them attitude to the ''Anglo-saxons'' but your necessary reaction does not appear to be in evidence. Can you account for it?


> *Paris area HGV restrictions:*
> Further restrictions apply for HGVs in the Paris area,
> HGVs cannot enter the Paris area on Mondays and day following a public holiday, from 6 a.m to 10 a.m),
> HGVs cannot leave the Paris area on Fridays and days preceding a public holiday, usually from 4 p.m. onwards.
> This means that trucks cannot transit via the inner ring road of Paris (boulevard périphérique) during these hours.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2013)

Having been an ex truck driver I think that is a very small time frame to get into a city, get unloaded and get out. Bearing in mind that there could be other trucks waiting to be unloaded.

You have to remember that trucks are a necessary evil. But I like the idea of restricting them for the rush hour periods.

The lady sadly died in the accident was a pedestrian and not a cyclist.

Steve


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Having been an ex truck driver I think that is a very small time frame to get into a city, get unloaded and get out. Bearing in mind that there could be other trucks waiting to be unloaded.
> 
> You have to remember that trucks are a necessary evil. But I like the idea of restricting them for the rush hour periods.
> 
> ...


Necessary evil? How can it be a necessary outcome of living in an often cramped city that it be serviced by vehicles that were never designed for urban use? That unsuitably big and blind vehicles squeeze out the small and vulnerable road user? If there were a ''killer pays'' system, they'd improve road conditions for all of us almost immediately. They'd suddenly be able to afford fleet modifications, safety improvements, and catch up with urban requirements. Necessarily. 

Until then, the deaths are simply an outcome of, not necessity, but cost shifting. Economic murder.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2013)

Thanks for that rant.

But without putting more vehicles on the road and escalating everyday costs, how would you get the goods to the shops in the towns and cities?

Steve


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Thanks for that rant.
> 
> But without putting more vehicles on the road and escalating everyday costs, how would you get the goods to the shops in the towns and cities?
> 
> Steve


In vehicles appropriate, or at least designed, for city use. And tipper trucks are certainly not being used to carry goods to the shops.


----------



## spen666 (16 Nov 2013)

there is more to transport than taking goods to shops


----------



## numbnuts (16 Nov 2013)

> It was thought the victim was a cyclist, however, Met police have confirmed she was not on a bike.


----------



## Kies (16 Nov 2013)

spen666 said:


> that would just make the roads less safe for those who commute outside those hours!
> 
> there is no action without reaction



Possibly, but the biggest numbers of commuters sharing the roads are during the morning/evening peaks, therefore it would be better to ban them during those times


----------



## spen666 (16 Nov 2013)

better for some, but making it more dangerous for others.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2013)

Spen, it was an example.

Construction work goes on in cities and tippers need to be used. It is a very difficult situation to sort out. Using smaller tippers or goods vehicles means escalating costs. But I have driven for companies who do send smaller trucks into cities but it all adds to cost.

We cannot do away with trucks but there has to be solutions to reduce the accidents. This needs the co- operation of all road users.

Steve


----------



## Kies (16 Nov 2013)

spen666 said:


> better for some, but making it more dangerous for others.



Yes possibly, but there would be
A) fewer vehicles on the roads
B) fewer cyclists


----------



## bianchi1 (16 Nov 2013)

Kies said:


> Yes possibly, but there would be
> A) fewer vehicles on the roads
> B) fewer cyclists



I commute at strange times (chef) is my life worth less than someone working nine to five?


----------



## Roadrider48 (16 Nov 2013)

Tipper trucks carry aggregate, that is necessary for the development of any town or city. I don't really think Steve was weighing up cyclist deaths as a by product of city life.


----------



## spen666 (16 Nov 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> I commute at strange times (chef) is my life worth less than someone working nine to five?


Sadly it seems to some people that is the case.

What also seems to be forgotten is outside of the banned hours there would be more lorries on the road than now.

Imagine for simplicity that there are 240 lorries passing along the road in any 24 hour period. If evenly spaced, that would be 10 lorries an hour

If you ban lorries from the roads for say 6 hours a day, then it means there are only 18 hours for those 240 lorry journeys so there will be 13 1/3 journeys per hour in those 18 hours available to the lorries.

Thus to make the roads safer for 6 hours a day you are increasing the danger by increasing the number of lorries by 1/3 outside those hours. Add to this that some of those hours available are the most dangerous as they are night time. You are making the roads much more dangerous for those who ride outside the hours when lorries are banned.



An additional factor is that banning lorries does nothing to deal with the underlying problems. The problem is not lorries per se, it is the attitudes and abilities of those using the roads, whether motorists, cyclists or pedestrians. Banning lorries is dealing with the symptoms rather than the underlying causes.

Perhaps a better way of dealing with the problems would be to look at a system of licencing of HGV in urban areas. The Olympic development used a number of consolidation sites so that less in number, but more fully laden lorries went into the urban areas.

If HGV's had to obtain permits to use Urban roads, then if numbers of permits were limited, it would encourage the consolidation of transport to reduce the number of lorry journeys. The driving standard for those HGV drivers who are licenced should be significantly higher than at present. As there will be fewer drivers permitted to drive in urban areas, it would be possible to insist these have to pass an HGV+ test and have regular training like that given to london transport drivers

We also need to look at the behaviour and attitude of cyclists (and indeed all road users). We need a programme of education and training for road users. I have in mind the old public information films that we used to have on TV - remember Charlie the Cat? The sailor in his sailing dingy etc. 

We also need to crackdown on illegal acts by road users, not just red light jumping, but for example the number of cyclists riding without lights, bad driving, bad cycling etc. 

Rather than treating road traffic offences as minor matters, they should be treated as "proper" criminal offences. More people are killed on the roads than in Domestic Violence for example yet the police and CPS are forever introducing initiatives in that field and sentencing is increased, but motoring offences are continually downgraded. It is often only a matter of chance that careless driving does not result in a fatality.


----------



## sundrenchedleaves (16 Nov 2013)

Hi, just also confirming that the woman was not on a bike. The confusion must have come from my bike, as I dropped it on the side of the road to assist at the scene. Still very shocking news of the number of cyclists killed in the last 2 weeks.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

spen666 said:


> What also seems to be forgotten is outside of the banned hours there would be more lorries on the road than now.
> 
> Imagine for simplicity that there are 240 lorries passing along the road in any 24 hour period. If evenly spaced, that would be 10 lorries an hour
> 
> ...


Which is precisely why I asked you whether you could account for the low cyclist KSI rate in Paris,where HGV is subject to time restrictions. Post #14


----------



## spen666 (16 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Which is precisely why I asked you whether you could account for the low cyclist KSI rate in Paris,where HGV is subject to time restrictions. Post #14




The KSI rate in Paris is not simply a product of the hours that lorries are allowed in the city. To suggest otherwise is to be so far from the mark.

Would banning lorries at rush hour have saved the cyclist who died under a bus in Croydon?
Would banning lorries at rush hour have saved the cyclist who died under a bus in Holborn outside rush hour?
Would banning lorries at rush hour have saved the cyclist who died under a bus at Aldgate 23:30 at night after apparently riding the wrong way up a one way street?

What would have saved the lives of all these cyclists is better standards of driving and riding on our roads

We need better attitudes towards safety from all road users


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

spen666 said:


> The KSI rate in Paris is not simply a product of the hours that lorries are allowed in the city. To suggest otherwise is to be so far from the mark.
> 
> Would banning lorries at rush hour have saved the cyclist who died under a bus in Croydon?
> Would banning lorries at rush hour have saved the cyclist who died under a bus in Holborn outside rush hour?
> ...


Better attitudes are fine, no problem. Education welcome, no argument. But things are at the Accident and Emergency stage and no amount of ''He should have read the leaflet'' is going to deal with the problem. We need to do a little triage, as it were. What's killing the most right now? 

This TfL report is worth looking at - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/SSP-20131009-Item05-Cycle-Safety.pdf

And here's a snippet of why HGVs are a good place to start: (from Buffalo Bill's bike blog)


> I tweeted a couple of the salient statistics, HGV making up 6% of traffic during the morning peak, and 5% during the rest of the day, yet were involved in 53% of cycle fatalities between 2008 & 2012. These numbers won't surprise anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the statistics on cycling fatalities in London. HGVs were identified as the number one danger to London's cyclists nearly 20 years ago, in a British Medical Journal report that I have been linking to for at least 8 years.
> 
> Also not new is the identification in the report of lorries working for builders, mainly skip or tipper lorries, being more likely than other lorries to kill cyclists. 7 out of 9 fatalities in 2011, where the collision was between a large goods vehicle and a cyclist, involved a construction lorry. In 2004 the HGV working group set up by the Mayor of London's office identified construction lorries as over-represented in cyclist fatalities.


----------



## Roadrider48 (16 Nov 2013)

spen666 said:


> Sadly it seems to some people that is the case.
> 
> What also seems to be forgotten is outside of the banned hours there would be more lorries on the road than now.
> 
> ...


Spen666. You make some good points!


----------



## Kies (16 Nov 2013)

spen666 said:


> Sadly it seems to some people that is the case.
> 
> What also seems to be forgotten is outside of the banned hours there would be more lorries on the road than now.
> 
> ...




An excellent post there spen :thumbsup
I can see now how banning lorries for a few hours would be good for the peak hour(s) commuter, but not good for anyone cycling outside those times.


----------



## ComedyPilot (16 Nov 2013)

UK hysteria - we need cars to go shopping - we need lorries to deliver food.



So they starve in the Netherlands.......?

How do they do it?

How do they go shopping? 

How do they deliver goods in towns?


----------



## bianchi1 (16 Nov 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> UK hysteria - we need cars to go shopping - we need lorries to deliver food.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Between 2008 and 2010 there were more cycling deaths in the Netherlands as a percentage of population than anywhere in Europe. 

Take 2010 for example GB had 111 cycling deaths while the Netherlands had 162. In fact they have had more cycling deaths in than GB in every year from 2001.

The reason for this seems clear:

“In The Netherlands many people use the bicycle, especially in short – primarily urban – trips. While this increases the number of cyclist fatalities, it also results in a lower number of deaths for other modes, due to a lower usage of, for example, cars.”Henk Stipdonk, SWOV, The Netherlands [The effect on road safety of a modal shift from car to bicycle, Traffic Injury Prevention, accepted paper]. 


So if we are to accept the Netherlands modal do we have to accept a rise in cycling related death?


----------



## MattyKo (16 Nov 2013)

A little late to the discussion I know

However firstly I understand that this thread stems from a further road fatality

*SO MY SYMPATHIES ARE TO THOSE IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED BY THIS INCIDENT.*

Unfortunately, in Great Britain as soon as we mention a road fatality it is a 6% chance it is a cyclist and a* 25%* chance it is a *pedestrian*. The only other two user groups that measure in comparisons are car occupants @ 46% and motorcyclist @ 18%. Given that the latter two road user groups travel in motorised vehicles offers some understanding or reconciliation to their unfortunate "passing". 

However this should not detract us from the growing incidences of road fatalities worldwide - it is estimated that over One MILLION people die prematurely as a consequence of their involvement in a traffic accident each year. This one million milestone is reached earlier and earlier year on year. Great Britain over recent times has seen a dramatic decrease in road accident fatalities, however, I would argue that we are a major contributor to the manufacturer and distribution of motorised vehicles.

Concerning the mention of unintended consequences or the shifting of the problems following the restriction of access to HGV to urban areas in peak times. I have previously mentioned that maybe we should shift more of our freight via more historic routes waterways / railways and only complete the journey via the road. These drivers may therefore be more alert.

An argument that may offer equal weight regarding unintended consequences in the incidences involving tipper trucks, whilst the prevention of accidents on building sites is commendable, does not the increased state of accident prevention by these drivers whilst within the confines of the building sites, mean that they reduce that state of aware once outside the sites fencing.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

MattyKo said:


> Concerning the mention of unintended consequences or the shifting of the problems following the restriction of access to HGV to urban areas in peak times. I have previously mentioned that maybe we should shift more of our freight via more historic routes waterways / railways and only complete the journey via the road. These drivers may therefore be more alert.
> 
> An argument that may offer equal weight regarding unintended consequences in the incidences involving tipper trucks, whilst the prevention of accidents on building sites is commendable, does not the increased state of accident prevention by these drivers whilst within the confines of the building sites, mean that they reduce that state of aware once outside the sites fencing.



While Spen's all-things-being-equal logic looks valid enough, the truth of the argument is far from being proven. The virtual absence of cycling fatalities and city-wide HGV restrictions in Paris would need to be addressed - the predicted displacement of fatalities into quieter road times has simply not happened. And the shops have not been emptied of stock and the city does not run out of things to do just because a truck has has to avoid peak times and circulate when there is more space available to circulate in. 

The off-site lack of safety awareness is also mentioned in the TfL report I keep quoting. 



> an imbalance exists between the way work-related road safety and workplace health and safety is regulated, reported and enforced, leading to a lack of ownership of road risk. This is clearly identifiable within construction industry supply chains


----------



## spen666 (16 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> While Spen's all-things-being-equal logic looks valid enough, the truth of the argument is far from being proven. The virtual absence of cycling fatalities and city-wide HGV restrictions in Paris would need to be addressed - the predicted displacement of fatalities into quieter road times has simply not happened. And the shops have not been emptied of stock and the city does not run out of things to do just because a truck has has to avoid peak times and circulate when there is more space available to circulate in.
> 
> The off-site lack of safety awareness is also mentioned in the TfL report I keep quoting.




I am afraid that you are basing your post on a figure that does not support your conclusions.

The number of KSI being lower in Paris than London ( if true) does not mean the ban on lorries is the reason. There could be any number of reasons, including:
1. Better attitude of motorists towards cyclists
2. Better attitude of cyclists towards risk
3. Better design of streets (even allowing for the suggestion that there are less cycling specific facilities)
4. Lower numbers of cycling commuters
5. Less miles cycled
6. A more relaxed attitude towards cycling on the pavement
7. Less miles driven
8. Less cars on the road

It could be any of these factors or other factors, or it could be a combination of these and other reasons.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Nov 2013)

spen666 said:


> I am afraid that you are basing your post on a figure that does not support your conclusions.
> 
> The number of KSI being lower in Paris than London ( if true) does not mean the ban on lorries is the reason. There could be any number of reasons, including:
> 1. Better attitude of motorists towards cyclists
> ...


I don't claim to know what you're basing your post on, but my post was based on your portrayal of a HGV ban redistributing the fatalities throughout the slack periods. It seemed worth pointing out that a large and important city nearby, equipped with a bike hire scheme, and operating HGV restrictions has not led to a redistribution of fatalities. _Et croyez-moi, après avoir conduit au moins 30,000km en France, je connais assez bien le comportement français au volant._


----------

