Home
Number of deaths unchanged; campaigners Stop Killing Cyclists urge enforcement against law-breaking drivers

Mayor of London Boris Johnson has claimed that there has been a “significant drop” in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured (KSI) in the capital during 2013. However, the campaign group Stop Killing Cyclists says the mayor needs to do more to ensure traffic laws are enforced against dirvers who break them.

While the annual report from Transport for London on collisions and casualties on London’s roads is not due to be published until September, Mr Johnson says the number of cyclists seriously injured on the city’s streets was 475 last year, reports ITV.com.

That represents a 27.7 per cent decline on the 657 cyclists who suffered serious injuries in London during 2012, and is also 14.4 per cent down on the 2011 figure of 555.

It is 17.6 per cent higher than the 2005-09 annual average of 404, although that needs to be set against the background of a strong increase in cycling in London over the past decade.

The number of deaths remained unchanged at 14 in both 2012 and 2013, when six riders died in a two-week spell in November. In 2011, there were 16 cyclist fatalities in London.

According to ITV’s Simon Harris, who tweeted a picture of the mayor, Mr Johnson was speaking at the launch of a new campaign targeting law-breaking motorists and bike riders.

In January, the Metropolitan Police revealed that its Operation Safeway campaign, launched last year, had resulted in more than 14,000 road users, three in ten of them cyclists, being fined or summonsed for a variety of offences. Our report has a detailed breakdown of the type of offences involved.

Mr Johnson said today: “Whilst these new figures are encouraging and a real move in the right direction one death or serious injury is one too many. That is why I am building new, protected cycle routes and better junctions, the first of which will be delivered this year.

“It is why I intend to ban all lorries not fitted with cyclist safety equipment from London. It's why we are investing the thick end of £1 billion on cycle safety and infrastructure.”

Andrew Gilligan, London’s cycling commissioner, commented: "If we are to improve safety still further, we need to be honest with ourselves about why accidents happen and why they have come down so much.

"We need to build safer roads, and the introduction of more segregated infrastructure can improve things still further, but as coroners have emphasised in recent inquest verdicts, people also have a responsibility to use those roads safely."

That is an allusion to inquests into deaths such as that of Khalid al-Hashimi last November, who Poplar Coroner's Court heard had nearly twice the legal driving limit of blood alcohol when he was killed after riding in front of a bus.

The campaign group Stop Killing Cyclists accused Mr Johnson staging “yet another photo-opportunity stunt” and urged him “to instead urgently tackle the real crises, failures and bias in London’s Road Safety Enforcement.”

Its co-founder, Donnachadh McCarthy, said: “The mayor rather than staging photo-stunts should sort out the mess his Traffic Enforcement schemes are in. Police resources should be targeted at the truly alarming levels of lethal trucks being driven on London’s roads.

“Whilst he fiddles, cyclist and pedestrian lives continue to be endangered by dangerous trucks being driven illegally on London’s roads and children are forced into the path of double-decker buses by inconsiderate drivers parked on un-enforced cycle-lanes.

“We recognise that safety enforcement should be targeted at all road users including cyclists, but it must be targeted in proportion to the danger caused and in proportion to numbers using our streets.

“Operation Safeway failed on both counts and the mayor and Metropolitan Police must ensure future operations do not mimic this flawed approach,” he added.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

27 comments

Avatar
northstar [1108 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Are these charalatans for real?

Avatar
bikebot [1635 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Well, what will they actually be doing this year?

I know some people complained, but I didn't particularly mind operation safeway last year. It wasn't great, but better than nothing. At least for the first time ever, I could cycle into town and find the majority of ASL boxes without a car in them.

Most of the penalties against cyclists were for failing to have lights, which it's quite right that people should be fined for. However, it's too early in the year to enforce that.

If all I'm going to get is another couple of weeks during which I won't be about to cycle somewhere without a PCSO dressed like a hi-viz lemon, asking me to pull over so that they can explain to me how I should also wear more hi-viz lemon, I think I'll just ride on.

Avatar
VeloPeo [300 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Take a look at Mark Treasure (‏@AsEasyAsRiding) for some better analysis on these numbers.

Avatar
levermonkey [646 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

The year is still young. Saying that there have been fewer KSIs this year is meaningless. We are inly 40% of the way through the year. Don't forget last year we had six fatalities in a two week period.

Avatar
pique [20 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

It seems a bit tempting fate to say there's a drop. I owner about the statistical significance of the numbers

Not advocating drunk riding - but there isn't a legal limit for blood alcohol while riding a bicycle.

Avatar
srchar [104 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

I was told off this morning for wearing black shorts and jersey - at 8:30am, in broad daylight. The "officer" also had a go at a bloke who was wearing earphones. Given that he had a conversation with her without removing them, I think he could still hear his surroundings...

Avatar
HarrogateSpa [276 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Quote:

The year is still young. Saying that there have been fewer KSIs this year is meaningless. We are inly 40% of the way through the year. Don't forget last year we had six fatalities in a two week period.

I think the statistics are for 2013, it just takes a while to collate them and get them ready for publication. That's what the article suggests.

Avatar
levermonkey [646 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Quote:

The year is still young. Saying that there have been fewer KSIs this year is meaningless. We are inly 40% of the way through the year. Don't forget last year we had six fatalities in a two week period.

I think the statistics are for 2013, it just takes a while to collate them and get them ready for publication. That's what the article suggests.

Sorry! Your quite right. I misread right at the start of the article and then my brain seams to have refused to auto correct as I read further. Turns out on rereading to be a bit of old stuff, a non-news story, a bit of new stuff and a 'dead-cat'.

Avatar
bikebot [1635 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
srchar wrote:

I was told off this morning for wearing black shorts and jersey - at 8:30am, in broad daylight. The "officer" also had a go at a bloke who was wearing earphones. Given that he had a conversation with her without removing them, I think he could still hear his surroundings...

Black shorts? Seriously?

I really hope that was a misunderstanding. I have a lot of respect for the Police, but I think my instinct to see the humour in everything would get the better of me if an officer told me I needed to wear hi-viz pants!

Avatar
northstar [1108 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
bikebot wrote:
srchar wrote:

I was told off this morning for wearing black shorts and jersey - at 8:30am, in broad daylight. The "officer" also had a go at a bloke who was wearing earphones. Given that he had a conversation with her without removing them, I think he could still hear his surroundings...

Black shorts? Seriously?

I really hope that was a misunderstanding. I have a lot of respect for the Police, but I think my instinct to see the humour in everything would get the better of me if an officer told me I needed to wear hi-viz pants!

It wouldn't be, they aren't in the business of helping riders.

Avatar
cyclingDMlondon [481 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

There were three MPS BMWs parked up next to the junction with Tooley Street and Tower Bridge Road this morning. The coppers stationed themselves at opposite corners of the junction.

I'd never seen so many cyclists obey the red light.  22

Anyway, as I waited for the green, two big Transit-size vans went through on the amber from 90° to my right, and couldn't clear the junction, so stopped dead on the junction box.

Did plod nick them?

Do I have to answer that?

Avatar
ChairRDRF [295 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Operation Safeway was NOT the supposed “blitz on unsafe driving” that it was publicised as. See http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/29/is-there-a-police-blitz-on-unsafe-driving-... for an account of what really happened. Law enforcement is a good idea, but as Mr McCarthy says “We recognise that safety enforcement should be targeted at all road users including cyclists, but it must be targeted in proportion to the danger caused and in proportion to numbers using our streets. “Operation Safeway failed on both counts and the mayor and Metropolitan Police must ensure future operations do not mimic this flawed approach,”

There is a lot that the Met could and should do for the safety of all road users: see http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/29/what-traffic-policing-could-be-like/

Avatar
banzicyclist2 [299 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

I'm glad I don't have to ride in a city.
 2

Avatar
levermonkey [646 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
pique wrote:

Not advocating drunk riding - but there isn't a legal limit for blood alcohol while riding a bicycle.

Right this one is a little complicated. Here are the offences
1) Riding a cycle on a road or other public place while unfit to ride through drink or drugs (RTA s.30)
i.e. Your wobbling all over the place. Basically this is not that much different from 'being drunk in a public place'. They've got you on being unable to exert proper control.

2) Being drunk while in charge of a carriage on any highway or other public place (LA 1872, s.12; Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102)
This one is a little naughty. You've been to the pub and decide that you are incapable of riding. You decide to push your bike home. Your nicked. Again it's basically drunk in public.

Right having said that. You cannot be forced to provide a sample or undergo an impairment test. However, if you do and you fail then it can be used in evidence.

If you want a bit more info then use the link below

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/09/21/can-you-ride-when-youve-been-drinking/

Avatar
Matt eaton [733 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
srchar wrote:

I was told off this morning for wearing black shorts and jersey - at 8:30am, in broad daylight. The "officer" also had a go at a bloke who was wearing earphones. Given that he had a conversation with her without removing them, I think he could still hear his surroundings...

I hope that you reminded the officer of rule 14.

Avatar
levermonkey [646 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:
srchar wrote:

I was told off this morning for wearing black shorts and jersey - at 8:30am, in broad daylight. The "officer" also had a go at a bloke who was wearing earphones. Given that he had a conversation with her without removing them, I think he could still hear his surroundings...

I hope that you reminded the officer of rule 14.

'Rule 14' of what? Because it's not the Highway Code. Clothing for cyclists is Rule 45 and as far as I'm aware the HC makes no mention of earphones.

Could you please expand. Thank you.  4

Avatar
bendertherobot [715 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
levermonkey wrote:

'Rule 14' of what? Because it's not the Highway Code. Clothing for cyclists is Rule 45 and as far as I'm aware the HC makes no mention of earphones.

Could you please expand. Thank you.  4

Dude! Rule 14! Shorts should always be black! Call yourself a cyclist?

Check out the Velominati Rules mun.

Avatar
cyclingDMlondon [481 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
bikebot wrote:

Well, what will they actually be doing this year?

I know some people complained, but I didn't particularly mind operation safeway last year. It wasn't great, but better than nothing. At least for the first time ever, I could cycle into town and find the majority of ASL boxes without a car in them.

Most of the penalties against cyclists were for failing to have lights, which it's quite right that people should be fined for. However, it's too early in the year to enforce that.

If all I'm going to get is another couple of weeks during which I won't be about to cycle somewhere without a PCSO dressed like a hi-viz lemon, asking me to pull over so that they can explain to me how I should also wear more hi-viz lemon, I think I'll just ride on.

I'd be interested to see what the reaction of plastic plod would be.

Cyclist pulls over.

Plastic Plod: Good morning, Sir. How are you?
Cyclist: I'm all right. Did I do something wrong?
Plastic Plod: Not at all, Sir. I'm just enquiring as to why you're not wearing a hi-viz vest...
Cyclist: Sorry?
Plastic Plod: A hi-viz vest, Sir. Why are you not wearing one?
Cyclist: *looking around for hidden camera* Erm.. I'm not sure I underst...erm.. is this a joke?
Plastic Plod: No joke, Sir. We're just attempting to encourage cyclists to take responsibility for their own -
Cyclist: Goodbye. *prepares to cycle off*
Plastic Plod: *grabs arm* Oi, I'm not finished with you, Sunshine!

.... as the famous line goes ... whaddya do???

Avatar
andreacasalotti [11 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

For a report on Khalid al Hashimi's killing please read

www.visionzerolondon.org/2014/04/victim-blaming-again-and-again.html?m=1

TfL was responsible for the killing; and has done nothing to ameliorate the situation.

It was classic victim blaming, a practice ingrained in TfL; and indeed in most Brits, when the victim has a foreign sounding name.

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet [501 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Oh why, oh why are we always fed half a stat to prove bugger all? 475 deaths out of how many journeys, cyclist or from lemons?

475 deaths from 200 million miles by 20 million cyclists is not bad at all.
475 deaths out of 480 cyclist doing one mile is bloody horrendous.

If there is a drop in people cycling then claiming it's because of a police operation is total and utter poppy cock. It's like saying that driving standards have improved as nobody crashed when the motrosport circuit was not in use.

Real shame we can not report near hits, I'll start 25miles and 6.

Goes into a dark room, muttering to oneself.  102

Avatar
bikebot [1635 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
cyclingDMlondon wrote:

I'd be interested to see what the reaction of plastic plod would be.

Cyclist pulls over.

Plastic Plod: Good morning, Sir. How are you?
Cyclist: I'm all right. Did I do something wrong?
Plastic Plod: Not at all, Sir. I'm just enquiring as to why you're not wearing a hi-viz vest...
Cyclist: Sorry?
Plastic Plod: A hi-viz vest, Sir. Why are you not wearing one?
Cyclist: *looking around for hidden camera* Erm.. I'm not sure I underst...erm.. is this a joke?
Plastic Plod: No joke, Sir. We're just attempting to encourage cyclists to take responsibility for their own -
Cyclist: Goodbye. *prepares to cycle off*
Plastic Plod: *grabs arm* Oi, I'm not finished with you, Sunshine!

.... as the famous line goes ... whaddya do???

I've changed my mind. With the tick box nature of this form of policing, I would instead tell him that I was indeed wearing a hi-viz vest, and that I had it on under my jersey.

After that, I'm sure he would wish me a safe trip and let me go about my business.

Avatar
cyclingDMlondon [481 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
bikebot wrote:
cyclingDMlondon wrote:

I'd be interested to see what the reaction of plastic plod would be.

Cyclist pulls over.

Plastic Plod: Good morning, Sir. How are you?
Cyclist: I'm all right. Did I do something wrong?
Plastic Plod: Not at all, Sir. I'm just enquiring as to why you're not wearing a hi-viz vest...
Cyclist: Sorry?
Plastic Plod: A hi-viz vest, Sir. Why are you not wearing one?
Cyclist: *looking around for hidden camera* Erm.. I'm not sure I underst...erm.. is this a joke?
Plastic Plod: No joke, Sir. We're just attempting to encourage cyclists to take responsibility for their own -
Cyclist: Goodbye. *prepares to cycle off*
Plastic Plod: *grabs arm* Oi, I'm not finished with you, Sunshine!

.... as the famous line goes ... whaddya do???

I've changed my mind. With the tick box nature of this form of policing, I would instead tell him that I was indeed wearing a hi-viz vest, and that I had it on under my jersey.

After that, I'm sure he would wish me a safe trip and let me go about my business.

No, he'd be 'You bein' cheekaï, mayte?'

You would then be arrested and charged under s. 1(1)(b) of the Contempt of Cop Act 2013.

Avatar
bikebot [1635 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
cyclingDMlondon wrote:

No, he'd be 'You bein' cheekaï, mayte?'

You would then be arrested and charged under s. 1(1)(b) of the Contempt of Cop Act 2013.

Well, I'm running out of options now, you decide!

Plan C) Look down at my bike in complete bemusement, and say "where's my bloody car gone!"

Plan D) Pretend to be French. May require onions.

Plan E) Engage in Chaplin inspired arse kicking of Police officer, following by chase sequence with musical accompaniment. May require orphans.

Avatar
northstar [1108 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
cyclingDMlondon wrote:
bikebot wrote:

Well, what will they actually be doing this year?

I know some people complained, but I didn't particularly mind operation safeway last year. It wasn't great, but better than nothing. At least for the first time ever, I could cycle into town and find the majority of ASL boxes without a car in them.

Most of the penalties against cyclists were for failing to have lights, which it's quite right that people should be fined for. However, it's too early in the year to enforce that.

If all I'm going to get is another couple of weeks during which I won't be about to cycle somewhere without a PCSO dressed like a hi-viz lemon, asking me to pull over so that they can explain to me how I should also wear more hi-viz lemon, I think I'll just ride on.

I'd be interested to see what the reaction of plastic plod would be.

Cyclist pulls over.

Plastic Plod: Good morning, Sir. How are you?
Cyclist: I'm all right. Did I do something wrong?
Plastic Plod: Not at all, Sir. I'm just enquiring as to why you're not wearing a hi-viz vest...
Cyclist: Sorry?
Plastic Plod: A hi-viz vest, Sir. Why are you not wearing one?
Cyclist: *looking around for hidden camera* Erm.. I'm not sure I underst...erm.. is this a joke?
Plastic Plod: No joke, Sir. We're just attempting to encourage cyclists to take responsibility for their own -
Cyclist: Goodbye. *prepares to cycle off*
Plastic Plod: *grabs arm* Oi, I'm not finished with you, Sunshine!

.... as the famous line goes ... whaddya do???

Don't stop, you are under no obligation too, ride on and wish them more luck with some other chump or just ignore them and if they assault you, then they are in deep shit.

That includes grabbing your arm or touching your bike.

Avatar
levermonkey [646 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:
levermonkey wrote:

'Rule 14' of what? Because it's not the Highway Code. Clothing for cyclists is Rule 45 and as far as I'm aware the HC makes no mention of earphones.

Could you please expand. Thank you.  4

Dude! Rule 14! Shorts should always be black! Call yourself a cyclist?

Check out the Velominati Rules mun.

My original statement is still valid as without a common frame of reference saying 'rule 14' is useless.

I'll give you an example. Say you are stopped by the Police and you are given a summons. If he just states that you are in breach of Regulation 7 how will you be able to prepare a defence. You would expect to be informed that it is Regulation 7, The Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 at the very least.

What you should have written is maybe "Rule 14 (Velominati)" maybe. After all you were referring to a Policeman approaching a cyclist on the public road so therefore it would be natural to assume that your point of reference would be the Highway Code. So, instead of being a facetious prat quoting 'rules' from some random list might I suggest you make your posts clearer in future.  4

See Rule 4 (Levermonkey).  24

Avatar
bikebot [1635 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

You know, I think we've all failed to take this subject seriously.

Carry on.

Avatar
levermonkey [646 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
bikebot wrote:

You know, I think we've all failed to take this subject seriously.
Carry on.

What is there to take seriously? Old news (soon to be overtaken tragically by events), Boris on a photo-opportunity, yet another victim-blaming crackdown on cyclists, more old news about unsafe lorries and more promises to look into the causes of accidents (no promise to eliminate the causes accidents).

All froth and inconsequentialities glossing over very real issues. A complete waste of an article trying to cover too much and in the end covering nothing. Are you really surprised that the string is the way it is? I'm not!  29