it’s a jungle out there
My cycling is mostly centred around the leafy suburbs of England’s lovely home counties, and usually at the weekend before Joe Public raises himself from slumber. Aren’t I the lucky one! Hearing that six or seven such cyclists have died in recent weeks on London’s roads strikes me as one of the most shocking statistics you’re ever likely to hear. I subsequently find their Mayor’s response equally eye-opening – ban cyclists from using headphones and make them wear hi-viz clothing. Thanks Boris.
A few days ago the Met police, checking HGVs at Vauxhall in central London, found over half of them – HALF – shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place. Either drivers hadn’t taken the legally required break after four hours, they had worked longer than the legally allowed consecutive nine hours, or their actual HGV was considered not roadworthy. Tired drivers are a danger to themselves let alone cyclists but in the event of a collision, the cyclist is undoubtedly going to come off worse. Consequently, the presumption of guilt for the least vulnerable road user in any accident (mandatory in Europe) is essential. Only when drivers, and HGV owners, fear prosecution for unlawful death will they begin to take the care to which other road users are entitled.
Being the paternal liberalist I am, I also hear the argument that, due to the continued deregulation of the rat-race economy, with diminishing workers’ rights and increased levels of job pressure, drivers of such vehicles are somehow absolved from any guilt, as they’re only doing their job, and doing it is as quickly as possible. Perhaps surprisingly, I don’t buy this for one second. If doing your job efficiently means you have to cut such corners (literally and metaphorically) that someone gets killed then you need to take a look at yourself behind the wheel and accept your collusion in the process.
Road safety needs to be addressed for all road and pavement users, for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike. It is not a one-way street and all parties need to work together in order to keep safe. We need a combined effort to reduce fatalities.
Dave Gingell responds:
I lived in the enlightened cycling city of Amsterdam for two years. Much can be learned from them. In fact up until 1960s far from being the cycling haven we see today, Amsterdam was just as dangerous. Since that time the Dutch have driven a safety and “bike first” culture like no other and mainly through legislation. So it isn’t as though it is impossible to change. Today no significant building work is approved unless the impact on cycling has been stated and agreed. Cycle lanes are everywhere and consistent in their application (not running out, like in London). In order of priority in AMS 1) trams 2) bikes 3) people 4) cars. I am not even sure HGVs have any status at all. If you knock over a cyclist you are presumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Sure, London is very different, is about 20 times larger and almost 20 time more people in it. (But there are lessons to be learned. It is also extremely rare to see a cycle helmet. Only children and those with carbon fibre bikes over 5 grand wear one). Cycling is in the DNA of Dutch people.
The time is ripe to drive legislative change. But the prospects are bleak – Brits are fixated with the automobile.
