Safer Streets Encourage Cycling

My firm, Bolt Burdon Kemp, recently launched a Cycle for Life campaign with the road safety charity, Brake. The strongest issue in this campaign is for a widespread 20 mph limit in communities to protect cyclists and pedestrians.

To get the ball rolling, we undertook a joint survey to assess the views on cycling amongst 1,500 road users. The results were interesting but, to me at least, not unexpected. The key point to come out of the survey is that 35% would switch to cycling for their commute if the route was less dangerous and 46% would make other local journeys by bike given safer roads.

The impact of these potential cyclists choosing not to cycle has a significant reach. If all these people were to start regularly cycling, the roads would be exponentially safer for cyclists. There is plenty of evidence to show that an increase in the number of cyclists leads to reductions in cycle casualties. For example, London has seen an enormous rise in cycling over the last 15 years and there has been a corresponding 33% fall in cycle casualties. It stands to reason that drivers who are more used to dealing with cyclists on the road will be better educated in how to deal with them and more alert to the presence of a cyclist.

In addition, the health benefits of cycling cannot be overstated. Cycling regularly has been shown to be the most effective thing an individual can do to improve health and increase longevity. On 10 May 2004, the UK parliamentary health committee published a report which noted that “If the Government were to achieve its target of trebling cycling in the period 2000-2010 … that might achieve more in the fight against obesity than any individual measure we recommend within this report.”

On 21st April 2009, over three years ago now, the government was presented with the paper “A Safer Way: Consultation on Making Britain’s Roads the Safest in the World.” The proposals recommended that local authorities introduce 20 mph zones around schools and for residential areas. This is heartily backed by the population, drivers and cyclists alike. It is astonishing that this popular, valuable and efficient measure has not been implemented further to encourage cycling, thereby promoting good health, and improving the safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

The introduction of 20 mph zones has started, and Islington (from where I now type) is not alone in introducing a near blanket 20 mph limit, but movement has been slow. Since cycling is now a front-page issue, surely the government need to act swiftly to encourage the implementation of far-reaching 20 mph zones. It is a crime that so many are put off cycling when such simple measures could push the potential cyclist into being a committed commuter cyclist.

Cycling talk

On Tuesday, I gave a talk on cycling law at the transport special interest group for the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. The talk was on rules of the road for cyclists, the case of Malasi -v- Attmed (which I have blogged about previously) and some areas of loss specific to cyclists. I'll post my notes here shortly.

I was joined by Martin Porter QC of 2 Temple Gardens, who spoke on cycle helmets. You can find his paper on this topic here which is well worth a look, particularly for those who seek to blame cyclists for not wearing a helmet:

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2012/03/cycle-helmets.html

Christmas vigil for the deaths on London's roads

(From LCC website)

From 6pm on Tuesday 20 December 2011, cyclists, pedestrians, and friends and family of recent crash victims will gather outside King's Cross station for a Christmas vigil to remember loved ones and highlight the unacceptable death toll on the capital’s roads.

The London Cycling Campaign, RoadPeace, London Living Streets, and prominent bloggers are inviting all Londoners to join them beside one of the city's most dangerous junctions where already a cyclist has been killed this year.

The event will contrast the high levels of road danger in Greater London with the safety of Dutch cities, with cyclists in London at least twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as they are in Holland.

Campaigners are calling on the Mayor to reject his policy of putting motor traffic flow above safety.

Over 100 Londoners are killed every year in collisions on our roads, and a large proportion of these are pedestrians, as well as cyclists, motorcyclists and car occupants.

LCC chief executive Ashok Sinha said, "Every few days another London family is torn apart by the violent death of a loved one, killed needlessly on the capital's streets.

"It’s hard to imagine the pain these families will feel, especially on Christmas Day when we traditionally share the love of those closest to us.

"Sixteen of the road fatalities in 2011 have been Londoners riding bikes (up from 10 last year), and this year there have been dozens of people on foot also killed.

"London cyclists have the same right to get about safely as people in Holland, so why are we more than twice as likely to be killed in collisions in our streets?"

Mark Ames of the ibikelondon blog said, "The Dutch have shown that high-quality cycle provision and child-friendly residential zones can reduce this death toll dramatically, and improve the quality of life for all city-dwellers. These designs are being adopted all over the world, but London is being left behind.”

Danny Williams of Cyclists in the City said, "People are being asked to fling themselves on bikes through multi-lane junctions where cycling is an after-thought. The safety of cyclists and pedestrians should have just as much importance as the safety of motor users on London's streets."

Campaigners are calling for the Mayor and TfL to address the most dangerous junctions in the city as a matter of urgency, and to implement continental-style streets in London to make them as safe and inviting as they are in Holland.

Cyclist who jumped a red light has compensation reduced by 80%

This morning I read about the case of Malasi v Attmed where a cyclist who jumped a red light was claiming compensation for being hit by a taxi. The driver had proceeded through a set of traffic lights when they were green, and struck a cyclist who had jumped a red light whilst coming through the junction to the driver’s left (see my rudimentary sketch below).

 

A crucial fact in this case was that the driver was travelling “gloriously in excess of the speed limit," as the Judge described it, which was between 41 and 50 miles per hour when the speed limit was 30 miles per hour. Had the driver been travelling within the speed limit (or only marginally above) the likelihood is that the cyclist would have been found wholly liable for the accident. As it was, the driver was found to be 20% liable for the accident, with the cyclist taking the lion’s share of the blame.

A worrying part of the judgment is with regard to cyclist’s clothing. The Judge found that whether or not the cyclist was wearing hi-visibility clothing was immaterial in this case, as the driver had a “good perception-response time.” However, this implies that a cyclist could be found to be partially liable for an accident if they are not wearing hi-visibility clothing, if the driver has a poor response time which contributed to the accident. As wearing hi-visibility clothing is not a legal requirement, my view is that placing any blame on the cyclist is wholly unfair as it would shift the responsibility away from drivers to watch out for cyclists.

Should red-light jumping be a police priority in Central London?

Red-light jumping by cyclists has become a priority for the police in Central London. I do not condone red-light jumping, but I think making it a police priority is not proportionate. Only 6% of collisions involving cyclists (so a tiny fraction of causes of all road traffic accidents) are caused by this practice. Furthermore, the harm caused by cyclists jumping red lights is likely to be modest compared to the damage caused by other vehicles.

The prioritising of police time on to red-light jumping cyclists is partly due to the onus on the police to deal with complaints by the public, who have apparently raised this as a concern. However, if you look at this questionnaire on the City of London website, you could understand why this might be the case as it is pretty skewed against cyclists:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/citypolice/forms/wardpolicingconsultation_b.aspx

You will see that there are boxes specified for people to rate their "level of concern" over the following issues:

• dangerous cycling (the only issue qualified by an adjective)
• skateboarders (just skateboarders, apparently - even when they are off skateboards?)
• noise
• drunkenness
• rough sleepers
• begging

By calling it "dangerous cycling" it is clearly encouraging people to complain against it. Dangerous could prefix most of the above issues to make them sound more of an issue, but this is not done. Also, there is no mention of dangerous vehicles, which are surely a much more pressing concern.

I encourage people who live, work or visit Central London to use this form to voice concerns against dangerous driving and maybe the police will take a more proportionate approach.

Open letter to Boris Johnson

Dear Mr Johnson

I was saddened to hear of the second cycling fatality at the Bow roundabout. The recent spate of cycling deaths must warrant a focused look at the current climate of cycling in London.

The attitude shown by the police, the civil courts and your own policies is indicative of a motorcentric society, and leaves much to be desired. For instance, TFL cited “traffic flow” as a priority over the welfare of cyclists in deciding whether measures were to be taken to improve safety at Blackfriars Bridge. This same attitude was illustrated by the police constable investigating the death of a cyclist who was hit by a lorry, who stated that he was “unaware of anything which could be done” to prevent such accidents. The notion that we cannot prevent the death of a cyclist by a lorry is unacceptable and inaccurate. We can restrict the times HGVs can come into Central London. We can change hazardous junctions. We can fit mirrors to the front and near-side of HGVs to avoid the blind spots which have caused so many fatalities.

The deaths from the London bombings on 7 July lead to strong action which whittled away our personal liberties by opening up the right of the police to stop and search, allowing the detainment of suspects without charge for 28 days and curtailing the right to protest. The tragic deaths of cyclists must carry the same weight as tragic deaths caused by terrorism, and action must follow. The lives of the Londoners who died in the bombings on July 7th can never be replaced, but the lives of the Londoners who have since died in cycling accidents could have been saved.

Yours sincerely

Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'

Cyclists have been warned by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) that they should get insurance. This is on the basis that cycling is a dangerous activity, which is fundamentally misconceived. In fact, it is more 'dangerous' to be a pedestrian than a cyclist. The majority of cycling accidents are also covered by some form of protection. For instance, if a cyclist is injured by an uninsured driver, or in a hit and run incident, they will be able to get compensation for their injury and financial losses by applying to the Motor Insurer's Bureau. Alternatively, if an accident is caused by an insured driver, the injury and losses will be covered by their insurer.

Realistically, the only times such insurance would be useful is where a cyclist is injured in an accident caused by themselves, a pedestrian, or another cyclist, or where a cyclist causes an accident for which they are liable. However, an accident not involving a motor vehicle is unlikely to cause more than minor harm, and the risk of a cyclist causing someone else damage is relatively slender and the type of damage is also likely to be minor.

Now I am not saying that such insurance would never be useful - indeed, there are rare instances when having the insurance would pay off. However, my view is that encouraging cyclists to get accident insurance has the undesirable consequences of reinforcing the belief that cycling is dangerous and may discourage people from cycling. Perhaps I am being cynical, but I can't help thinking that if more cyclists had insurance, it would be a natural progression for the ABI to lobby the Government to make cycle insurance a legal obligation. I am sure I am not the only cyclist who would meet this with strong opposition.