Rider down in Roehampton, looking like another death 15.11.13

[deptfordmarmoset]

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

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]

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.

Spen666. You make some good points!

 

[Kies]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.