On Friday November 27, 21 coffins will be laid outside Transport for London’s (TfL) headquarters by the Stop Killing Cyclists campaign group. The act is to symbolise the 21 cyclists killed on the roads of the capital since six were killed in just one month in 2013.
It will be the group’s third annual cycling and pedestrian safety die-in and vigil protest outside TfL HQ and a symbolic tombstone marking the estimated 24,000 Londoners who have died from transport related transport pollution and inactivity diseases over the past two years will also be placed.
The vigil is calling on all London mayoral candidates to support Stop Killing Cyclists’ ‘10 by 2020’ London Mayoral Cycle Safety Challenge.
The key element of ’10 by 2020’ is for 10 per cent of the TfL budget to be allocated to cycling infrastructure by 2020.
Stop Killing Cyclists co-founder Donnachadh McCarthy said: “The current pathetic 1.4 per cent of the budget being spent on cycling safety is an insult to those dying from collisions, pollution and inactivity diseases and the tens of thousands of Londoners living every day with terrible health impacts.”
In response to a Stop Killing Cyclists questionnaire, two candidates – Sian Berry (Green Party) and Rosalind Readhead (Independent) – expressed support for the 10 per cent level of funding, while Lib Dem Caroline Pidgeon promised at least three per cent and more if cycling exceeded three per cent of traffic.
However, this is only one of ten question posed to candidates:
1. 10% BY 2020: Will you commit to investing 10% of TfL budget on cycling infrastructure by 2020, building up each year from current minuscule 1.4%?
2. END HGV/BUS BLIND SPOT: Will you require full blind-spot safety equipment (Left Hand Side CCTV and alarms) to be installed in all existing and new HGVs, buses, coaches and Tipper Trucks entering London?
3. MINI-HOLLANDS FOR ALL: Will you fund a Mini-Holland Programme for all London Boroughs within your first term?
4. PHYSICALLY PROTECTED CYCLE-LANES: Will you support a comprehensive grid of Go-Dutch standard physically protected cycle-routes across the TfL road network to enable people of all ages and abilities to cycle safely?
5. LONDON 20 MPH ZONE: Will you support a 20mph speed limit across London (excluding motorways)?
6. SAFER LEFT HAND TURNS – EMERGENCY PROGRAMME + IDAHO LAW: Will you support the introduction of the Idaho law, allowing cyclists to turn left when traffic is free at junctions, with full legal priority for pedestrians, when doing so and support an emergency programme of installing safe protected left-hand turns at a minimum of the 500 junctions that were originally promised to be reviewed by Boris Johnson by the end of your first term? (NB These were subsequently cut to 33)
7. END LETHAL TIME PRESSURES ON BUSES/TIPPER TRUCKS: Will you end the lethal paid by timed delivery regimes for HGVs in the construction industry and end dangerous system of paying for bus performance by contracted Excess Waiting Time Targets?
8. SQUARES AND STREETS FIT FOR HUMANS: Will you support a programme of making our beautiful major squares and shopping streets fit for humans, by closing them to motorised transport, including Oxford Street, Trafalgar Square, Piccadilly, Parliament Square, Bank Junction, etc ?
9. TWO TfL BOARD PLACES FOR CYCLISTS: Will you appoint two cycling representatives to the TfL Board, nominated by cycling groups and change its name to the London Cycling, Walking and Transport Authority?
10. TIPPER TRUCK BAN: Will you ban tipper trucks at rush hour and introduce a scheme whereby electric delivery trucks bring in goods from HGVs parked in outer London, into central London and promote cargo bikes for last mile deliveries?
The vigil will be held outside the Palestra Building, Blackfriars Road on November 27 between 5pm and 6.30pm.
Add new comment
9 comments
I went up to the summer die in at Bank in central London, and now there's plans afoot to reduce the amount of traffic using that junction.
So I'll definitely be at this one on Friday, either direct or part of Mass, here's hoping we get a good response to this one too.
Agree with terrorist analogy, absolutely full respects of course to all past and current events.
Terrorism is simply defined as "the unoffocial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims".
Lets look at that shall we? Officially, no-one is allowed per se to kill or maim another but we have to endure this on a daily basis by motorists. Thats both violence and intimidation ticked off.
Political aims...in that government continues to pursue favouritism with big motor manufacturers and are too weak to rock the political favour of voters who have become so utterly dependent on motor vehicles that they will turn a blind eye to toxic air pollution, the restriction of their childrens liberty under fear of traffic collision and the wasteful squandering of billions in taxes to keep up with the behemoth that is our national transport policy.
I'd say terrorism is quite appropriate a term. So, ISIS get the attention of domestic security agencies such as GCHQ and MI5 along with international attention from MI6 and full international cross agency co-operation because they use guns and explosives.
Terrorists who drive around 'accidentally' killing and maiming get at best a small fine and a naughty sticker. Who kills more in the UK, ISIS or cars?
Ive said it before and I'll say it again, why cant this very obvious refusal by government to ensure safety for the vulnerable be challenged under human rights laws or similar?
Why does one group continually get to kill and maim the more vulnerable group and those voted in to safeguard our best interests be allowed to sign our death warrants through inactivity, apathy and immoral prejudice towards private profiteering of the motor industry? Where is our cycling MI5 and our GCHQ?
In the wake of recent events, the coffins seems pretty badly considered - the whole idea is tasteless in truth.
Mororists kill many more people than terrorists. When you are dead you cannot make any distinction between those who meant to kill you and those who were just careless.
All politicians will make all kinds of mealy-mouthed promises before an election.
Tying them down to implementing their promises after the election is the problem.
Well this morning, Zac has been talking about allowing electric cars into bus lanes, leading to them being completely absolished in a few years. To quote the man -
"I can't see any reason in the short term as a perk, an incentive to get people to buy electric cars, this [allowing electric cars into bus lanes] shouldn't happen."
So that tells me everything I need to know about the mans practical experience of riding a bike in London. It didn't even occur to him that many cycle routes are nothing more than bus lanes, and their limited protection would become non-existant by this proposal.
And if he wants to address congestion in London, how about not having an incentive of any kind to buy a car!
He is interested in things that cause people to spend huge amounts of money (on a car) so that his mates in big businesses can make profit. Things like whether members of the electorate die or not is of no interest to him.
People who cannot afford cars can all die for all he cares, so if this new plan causes their deaths, he won't react at all. This is completely normal for most politicians, though.
Yeah, car drivers, generally are goldsmiths core demographic, as a Tory he has to appeal to the suburbs where the car is still king and every household will fight to their dying breath for the right to drive any distance further than the couch to the fridge.
Politicians lie. In opposition they say one thing and the government says the opposite. IMO it doesn't matter which actual party is in opposition and which is in government- they'll just talk according to the script.