Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

No evidence lack of assertiveness a factor in female cycling lorry fatalities

Lorry-cycle safety expert responds to Anna Glowinski comments that women need to be more assertive to avoid lorry deaths

There is no evidence women are at greater risk from lorries because of lack of assertiveness, a cycle-lorry safety expert has said in response to comments made by cycle fashion designer and Cycle Show presenter, Anna Glowinski - but he says the vehicles themselves are "insanely unfit" for city streets.

The London Cycling Campaign's Charlie Lloyd was responding to comments made to the Evening Standard by Glowinski ahead of the final stage of the Street Velodrome Series in Broadgate, in the City of London, yesterday. She has since clarified her comments to road.cc (see below).

While Lloyd agreed with Glowinski that cycling in London is much safer than many make out, he said no-one knows why more women are killed by lorries in the capital and why, a lesser-quoted statistic, more men are killed by cars.

However, a study reportedly commissioned by TfL in 2007 suggests women obeying traffic lights was a contributing factor in the relatively high numbers of women killed by lorries in the capital.

Bike racer, TV presenter and founder of the Ana Nichoola clothing brand, which she left last year, Glowinski  told the Evening Standard: “I think it can be quite damaging to talk about how ‘dangerous’ cycling is. I really don’t think it is that dangerous. The reason I think women are getting hit by lorries is because it’s an assertiveness thing.

“When you are on the inside of a lorry, you are hidden. They will turn left and not see you. In order to put yourself in the safest position, you want to get right in front of it and make sure you are visible. Maybe women can be a little bit less assertive in doing that.”

“I think it’s good that cycle safety is taken seriously and highlighted so it’s high on the political agenda, and people care about road safety and think about how to make certain junctions safer,” Glowinski said.

“But constant highlighting of cyclist accidents can be a bit misleading. I get told all the time: ‘You are taking your life in your own hands, you are crazy.’ It’s misleading. It’s putting people off.”

A report, attributed to TfL from 2007, tends to agree with Glowinski. It says: ‘Women may be overrepresented in [collisions with heavy goods vehicles] because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.’ Conversely, by jumping red lights, men are less likely to be caught in a lorry driver’s blind spot. 

Peter Wright, vehicle safety expert for an international motorsport safety commission and father of Rosie Wright, who was killed by a lorry accelerating away from traffic lights in 2007, said at the time: "‘Rosie was reasonably cautious, which seems to be the problem. It seems that you need to be aggressive and assertive to survive as a cyclist."

However, at the time TfL said there was no direct evidence that women were more at risk because they obeyed traffic lights.

The LCC's lorries expert, and former HGV driver, Charlie Lloyd, told road.cc although more women than men are killed by lorries, over ten years male and female cycling fatalities are proportionate to the relative numbers cycling when you remove lorries from the equation. However, he feels the focus should be on the vehicles causing the harm, and the infrastructure.

"I think it is right to say the streets aren't as dangerous as some people make out," he said, "and the important thing isn't if it is a man or woman, it is about the vehicles which are insanely unfit for city streets."

Lloyd cited statistics showing 17 men were killed in collision with cars in the capital since January 2009, but only one woman. In the same period 27 women were killed in collisions with lorries, and 22 men.

He said: "We don't know why women are more at risk from HGVs than men are, no-one knows that."

The most dangerous place to be in relation to a lorry, he points out, is 2-3m in front and to the left of the driver's cab.

"The crucial thing is that the danger comes from lorries rather than getting into specifics about the difference between men and women. We think it is important to focus on the source of danger, which is the design of lorries and the poor infrastructure."

He said although more of the growth in cycling over 12 years has been among men, reducing from an estimated 30 per cent to around a quarter London's proportion of female cyclists, the same thing happened in the Netherlands in the 1980s when cycling infrastructure started to be introduced.

"Our hope is that this is a blip," he said.

Clarification from Anna Glowinski:

"My Es was taken out of context and twisted; we had a conversation about racing Street Velodrome and they made a headline out of a small comment.

The rest of the article and what I said after is along the lines of my true opinion, after 15 years of cycling in London,  as a qualified National Standards Cycling Instructor with experience teaching adults and children  on-road cycling.

My belief is that in order to be safe on the roads the key is to see and be seen. Make eye contact!  That way you know you have been acknowledged.

The gender discussion with ES was very much a side topic in our conversation about The StreetVelodrome finals in Broadgate, when I was asked the direct question "why do you think more women get killed by hgvs than men?"

The truth is, we don't know why,  the numbers are so small it's hard to make a generalisation. The best we can hope for at the moment is to have open discussion, explore all avenues, answer questions and rule out red herrings, so we can find solutions to avoiding ALL cycling deaths on the roads.

The other point I was happy to make is that I truly think cycling in London is safe and should be encouraged. It's so enjoyable and I get frustrated when people say I am risking my life doing it. To me, it's  no more risky than stepping out of my house and facing all the potential dangers of the world!

Whilst I'm pleased that cycling deaths are taken seriously as this means solutions will be pushed high up the political agenda and roads will be made even safer, I think the drama surrounding headlines can create a misleading and largely unwarranted fear.

Ensure you are visible and that other road users have seen you and I can confidently say that cycling in London is safe and enjoyable."

Add new comment

12 comments

Avatar
james-o | 8 years ago
0 likes

It's been said before, the main issue I suspect is the left-hand filter lanes leading you to the advance stop box, a traffic feature that leads you into a very risky position. Arriving at or being just short of the stop box as the lights change to green is one of the most dangerous place you can be as you're most likely to have not been seen by or not spot a left-turning vehicle. Same for filtering on the right perhaps but generally a better place to be if there's space.

"I'm gobsmacked that 8 years ago we learnt that women are getting killed for obeying traffic rules yet nothing has been done about it."
I'm very suprised that the filter lane / advance stop design hasn't been looked at as a direct cause, that I know of.

Avatar
kev-s | 8 years ago
0 likes

This bit makes me laugh

“When you are on the inside of a lorry, you are hidden. They will turn left and not see you. In order to put yourself in the safest position, you want to get right in front of it and make sure you are visible. Maybe women can be a little bit less assertive in doing that.”

so they want you to go past the truck and get in front of it, so what if your halfway past and the truck begins to turn? what if you get in front but your not forward enough for the driver to see you?

The safest position is staying behind the truck, wait and see what maneuver its going to make and once it has left a clear and safe space for you then carry on, a few seconds delay to your journey or the chance of death you decide

I see so many people going up the inside of other vehicles and risking their lives to save 30 seconds on a journey

Its just madness especially when you see people with kids on their bikes doing it

I wish there was better education on this, maybe a TV commercial to make all types of cyclists aware of the dangers

Avatar
a.jumper | 8 years ago
0 likes

Ah the old canards about being visible and making eye contact! I've had motorists look at me and yet fail to see me.... and if someone could tell me how I can be INvisible then I'd find uses for it.

Stop the victim blaming, Anna. We're visible and need to start punishing the motorists who don't care to look.

Avatar
ron611087 | 8 years ago
0 likes
arfa wrote:

The problem isn't HGV's, it's tipper trucks

Yes I agree, or perhaps it's the combination of construction vehicle, City location, congestion and production targets that make the drivers take chances that they shouldn't.

My commute includes South Perimeter Road past the cargo area at Heathrow airport, home territory for HGV's, but these are horse and trailer transporters not construction vehicles. In my experience they are (on average) very good drivers and give me more space than any other vehicle does. That said, it's just not good being on the same road as fast moving behemoths and I would cut that part of my commute out if I could. The occasional close pass by a long vehicle is a terrifying experience.

Avatar
bikebot | 8 years ago
0 likes

As arfa above ^^^

I dislike the generalisation about HGVs in the same way I dislike numpties making generalisations about cyclists. There are design issues with lorries which make them unnecessarily dangerous, but most of the drivers are amongst the best on the road.

The construction industry however has many issues.

Avatar
arfa | 8 years ago
0 likes

The problem isn't HGV's, it's tipper trucks. Lumping them all together is a bit like comparing an airline pilot to a moped driver.
The way some of the pay per load toppers barrel through central London is shameful.
In addition to the above suggestions, the government (crossrail), British Land/Hammerson/Land Securities could stop pay per load contracting and introduce a policy of suspending any contracting firm involved in a KSI pending conclusion of a formal investigation. At the moment, the price of a human life resides below the price of one more load. This has to change but I am not holding my breath.

Avatar
arfa | 8 years ago
0 likes

The problem isn't HGV's, it's tipper trucks. Lumping them all together is a bit like comparing an airline pilot to a moped driver.
The way some of the pay per load toppers barrel through central London is shameful.
In addition to the above suggestions, the government (crossrail), British Land/Hammerson/Land Securities could stop pay per load contracting and introduce a policy of suspending any contracting firm involved in a KSI pending conclusion of a formal investigation. At the moment, the price of a human life resides below the price of one more load. This has to change but I am not holding my breath.

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 8 years ago
0 likes

Charlie Lloyd is right as usual: the gender bit is a red herring. We think what needs to be done is http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/07/21/what-transport-for-london-needs-to-do-for-...

Avatar
kie7077 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Is cycling safe? It certainly doesn't feel like it with near misses being a daily occurrence.

Looking at the statistics on this page says being in a car is far safer:
DfT casualty statistics rank driving, cycling, walking and motorcycling by risk | road.cc

Sure, cars do more miles but I don't think you average car driver drives 40 times further than your average commuter. And if you're considering ditching car journeys and going by bike instead then that's a 1:1 thing, not a 40:1 thing.

Cycling should be as safe as driving.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 8 years ago
1 like

There does seem to be a pattern.

However, if one wants to focus on gender, one could equally well point out that those driving and designing the lorries and allowing them on the roads are disproportionately male (overwhelmingly so for the first one). So I'd be quite cautious about looking at that topic, myself.

Avatar
Airzound | 8 years ago
0 likes

I don't buy the argument that more female cyclists stop at red lights therefore they are more likely to be crushed by lorries as they set off once lights have changed to green. Lorries are pretty slow to move off, they are really easy to out accelerate. Even a granny with a whicker basket can out accelerate an HGV from a standing start. Maybe it is the case that women are more likely to ride up the nearside of large vehicles. I have certainly witnessed plenty of this over the years, along with men. I have shouted at cyclists to stop, but they don't appreciate how a large vehicle turns and the huge blindspots they can be trapped in. I have been sworn at, told to "Fuck off!" by morons trying to ride up the nearside kerb on the inside of trucks and buses along a gap less than shoulder width wide, given it is generally the men doing the swearing, but women also do this kamikaze riding, so no wonder there are fatalities when these people don't have the first clue that what they are doing is extremely dangerous and potentially fatal to them. Not saying that trucks or vans, or any other vehicles, don't turn in on you or left hook, but by simply looking and around and having MIRRORS you can anticipate a lot better what traffic around you is doing and greatly minimise such manoeuvres. Get an Airzound it might just save your life!

Avatar
danthomascyclist | 8 years ago
1 like
Quote:

However, a study reportedly commissioned by TfL in 2007 suggests women obeying traffic lights was a contributing factor in the relatively high numbers of women killed by lorries in the capital.

I'm gobsmacked that 8 years ago we learnt that women are getting killed for obeying traffic rules yet nothing has been done about it.

Latest Comments