HomeCyclists and lorries
[This page is under development]
The junction where Seb was killed has been highlighted as unsafe for cycling for many years and City Cyclists have been campaigning for action since the group was reformed in 2001. A scheme to make the junction safer for pedestrians and cycles has been drawn up but has remained on the drawing board now for almost two years. The latest proposals are to allow cycles to cross on the main (indeed the only) north-south cycle route in the City every other signal cycle during the rush hour, meaning a wait of up to four minutes, as Transport for London (in charge of the signal timings) fears drivers might have to queue at times.
Southwark Bridge is used by many heavy vehicles as Tower Bridge and London Bridge both have weight restrictions. The corner where Sebastian was killed has been cut back to allow large vehicles to swing round at speed. London Bridge has a collision blackspot for cycles at the turn off to Arthur Street at the north end where two or three cyclists seriously injured per year by left-turning drivers who claim they 'thought' the cyclists would also turn left. City Cyclists requests to make minor changes to road markings have fallen on deaf ears at the Corporation of London.
The majority of cycle fatalities in London involve left turning vehicles and the majority also involve lorries: in central London the majority of cyclist fatalities caused by left-turning lorries while in the rest of London this collision type is 'only' about a quarter of cyclist fatalities. In 2000 a cement lorry on London Wall overtook a 20 year female cycling westwards then turned left immediately afterwards, crushing her to death. After the driver claimed in court not to have seen her and was only fined £250, the girl's mother decided to take action into her own hands after finding out how many similar so-called accidents there had been. She bought shares in the cement company, heckled the directors at their AGM and forced them to fit extra safety mirrors to their lorries. Unfortunately before the mirrors were fitted the same lorry (but a different driver) killed a 19 year old cyclist while turning left into Primrose Street from Bishopsgate in 2001. Sadly these inexpensive mirrors which remove the blind spot are still not compulsory.
The last cycle fatality in the City happened on the northern end of Blackfriars Bridge in February 2003 when a hit and run motorcyclist knocked off a grandfather using the cycle lane. All the Thames bridges have a very poor safety record for cyclists even by the City's standards, which has the worst Killed or Seriously Injured ('KSI') rate for cyclists of any local authority in the country.
An official sign as part of the official campaign about cycle/lorry interaction. Few cyclists are going to notice this sign, let alone be able to read it. Lorry drivers will not even see it. When we hear that the authorities are "doing something", this picture shows about the sum of it.
Correction from Cynthia Barlow, the mother in question: "Incidentally, I read further down your website and the mention of my daughter is not strictly correct – reality is rather worse than that I’m afraid. The driver of the lorry in my daughter’s case was acquitted, not fined, so nothing happened to him at all. The same lorry, with a different driver, was in the following year involved in another incident in which the cyclist, Sue Coll, was not in fact killed but suffered catastrophic injuries. The same driver as was involved in this second case was also involved in a third case in which another cyclist received disabling injuries. The prosecution of the driver in the second case involving Sue Coll was an exact repetition of my case – same barrister, same expert witness, same tactics, same everything, and same outcome, the driver was again acquitted. So I have carried on campaigning, not just with RMC, but also on the subject of failings in the criminal justice system."
I spoke to Sue Coll after her trial and was absolutely sickened by the similarities, same lies, same strategy of arrogant defence barrister attacking and humiliating the main prosecution witness (a van driver), etc. The driver’s defence even cited one of the initiatives that had come about as a result of my involvement with RMC as evidence that he was a conscientious driver, knowing that the truth would not come out because the prosecution had already agreed not to mention either the previous incident involving the same lorry, or the other previous incident involving the same driver, so as not to prejudice the driver’s chance of a fair trial. A fair trial for the victim would be nice. On the final day of the trial, it was obvious that the driver was going to be acquitted so Sue’s family came to court to support her. When the driver arrived, the police ushered him into a private back room “so that he wouldn’t be upset at seeing her family”. Really.
