RDRF Chair Dr. Robert Davis has sat on the Transport for London convened Cycle Safety Working Group, charged with implementing the Mayor of London’s Cycle Safety Action Plan, since it’s inception. Here is my report on my observations of its progress to the London Assembly hearing on Cycling and Cycling Safety
INTRODUCTION:
Below I describe my impressions on the progress of the Cycle Safety Working Group, which is charged with monitoring and advising on the progress of the Mayor of London’s Cycle Safety Action Plan, and which I have attended since its inception as the representative of the London Boroughs Cycling Officers Group. BCOG is represented along with CTC, LCC, RoadPeace, LoTAG, Sustrans, LCC, MPS and TfL sections Needless to say, my views may not be the same as other officers in my Borough, all other BCOG officers or other stakeholders represented on the CSWG. Also, this is not a formal analysis of each point in the CSAP. Rather it considers some key issues and the potential benefits which may have been effected so far.
Dr. Robert Davis, representing London Borough Cycling Officers Group representative on Cycle Safety Working Group 28th September 2012
TYPES OF COLLISION – overview
While there is some change from year to year in London, the basic pattern of collisions resulting in cyclists being reported as Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) has remained the same since the Cycle Safety Action Plan (CSAP) was produced. (I take the liberty of pointing out that, along with Charlie Lloyd of London cycling campaign, I was instrumental in producing the table summarised below). It is:
Fatal collision between bicycle and goods vehicles 50% deaths
Close proximity collision between cyclist and vehicle 30%
Other vehicle disobeys junction control 17%
Other vehicle turns right across path of cycle 12%
Cyclist hits or swerves to avoid an open door of other vehicle 8%
Other vehicle runs into the rear of cycle 6%
Cyclist disobeys junction control 5%
Cyclist rides off footway into the path of vehicle on the carriageway 4%
This information, along with the “contributory factors” produced by MPS are based on thereports of a police officer investigating the incident who may not have a full and proper analysis of exactly what has happened in the incident. Nevertheless, it is a clearer picture than in most other parts of the UK, and gives some useful information. Both the description of the type of incident occurring (as above) and the contributory factors described in publications by MPS and TfL indicate that at least half the incidents occurring –certainly with adult cyclists – are not primarily the legal fault of the cyclist. It is regrettable, to say the least, that the Mayor of London has ignored this information and not apologized for giving the unsourced, misleading and incorrect figure of cyclist responsibility in incidents of “61%”NB. 04/10/2012 The Mayor has now retracted the bogus statistic http://lcc.org.uk/articles/boris-johnson-retracts-claim-that-two-thirds-of-cyclists-killedand-injured-broke-the-law
THE CSAP PRIORITIES – AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THEM
3.1: SAFER INFRASTRUCTURE
A. “PRIORITY 3.1.1:
Work to ensure that all new road infrastructure contributes to improved safety of cyclists, including speed reduction measures, junction improvements, and awareness of cyclists needs.”
I note that this refers to “new” infrastructure, not existing infrastructure which cyclists must use. There has been a move forward with consideration of junctions in TfL’s Junctions Review – however this does not apply to Borough Roads and is, again, on new developments on the Transport for London Road Network. Furthermore, since the CSAP was produced, TfL has been involved in constructing new infrastructure, such as the Finchley Road/North Circular Road junction where its standards – the London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS) have not been applied.
B. “PRIORITY 3.1.2:
Identify high risk locations on the road network for cyclists and advise on and implement site specific preventative measures. “
There is a problem with defining “high risk” which has never been resolved. While this definition is based on numbers of cyclist KSIs, rather than KSI rates (per cyclist journey or movement at a specific site), junctions where there is high risk to cyclists may be missed out if cyclist numbers are low – often, ironically, precisely because of the high level of hazard at such locations. There are also objective measures – such as the level of Bikeability skills required to use a particular junction or link as specified in the Cycle Skills Network Audit. It is also obvious that some Locations, such as gyratory systems requiring movement over multi-lanes through fast moving general traffic, constitute high level risk.
As seen in TfL’s Road Safety Action Plan, such measures of danger, despite stakeholder requests, have not yet been accepted as proper measures of risk.
C. “PRIORITY 3.1.3:
Promote good practice guidance for infrastructure design and operation, ensuring that LCDS are followed. Continue to develop and disseminate cycle design good practice”.
LCDS standards are quite plainly not in place throughout London, and there is no monitoring of changes in highway infrastructure to ensure they are. Very few highway engineers or transport planners have been trained in LCDS. At present we have a promise of two LCDS workshops to be held in the current financial year. That would still leave the vast majority of personnel involved in changing infrastructure in London unaware of these guidelines.
3.2 TRAINING AND INFORMATION
D. “PRIORITY 3.2.1:
E. “PRIORITY 3.2.2:
Work with Boroughs, Department for Transport (DfT) and service providers to agree a common set of processes to develop cycle training standards and quality. The content of this training will address the main eight causes of casualties”.
Increase awareness of cycle training in London through marketing and promotion”.
Practitioners have a great deal of concern about the standards of cycle training in London, specifically whether they are in accordance with the principles of National Standards training (known as Bikeability). While there are plans to attempt to assess the training programmes at present, as a recent report commissioned by LB Tower Hamlets states:
“Boroughs monitor total expenditure, number of places provided at each level and schools engaged as a minimum but there is no central requirement for boroughs to record this in a robust way (so that results can be compared across London).”
For many practitioners, the key benefit of Bikeability confidence training is to achieve a modal shift towards cycling, and secure a benefit through the “Safety in Numbers” (SiN) effect which appears to have been responsible for reducing casualty rates of cyclists, at least in Inner London.However, there are doubts whether Boroughs have actually used cycle training to achieve this end. Also, advocacy of helmet wearing and hi-viz clothing, irrespective of the (lack of) evidence for such measures may inculcate a “dangerising” attitude towards cycling in young trainees. These issues have not been addressed or assessed by TfL. While TfL pursues a localist agenda giving power to boroughs, it is not ensuring that TfL funding is used to the best possible ends.
3.4: ENFORCEMENT
F. “PRIORITY 3.4.1:
The MPS and other partners will put a renewed emphasis on reducing KSIs on London’s roads. The MPS, with Traffic Operational Command Unit (OCU) taking the lead, will undertake targeted enforcementagainst careless and dangerous road user behaviour”.
I have reviewed figures supplied by MPS as follows:
Over 2010/2011 CO16 was due to have been involved in the following:
Prosecution of 56,000 individuals involving 73,000 separate offence summonses.
Prosecution of 56,000 individuals involving 73,000 separate offence summonses.
37,000 caught by safety cameras attend driver improvement courses
1,500 (driving without due care) to attend driver improvement courses
3,800 people were expected to be banned – ¾ of these will be involved in other forms of criminal activity. (Note, there is no estimate of the numbers of people continuing to drive when banned)
27,000 Personal Injury Collisions dealt with (out of c. 40,000)
36,000 damage only collisions (out of c. ½ million)
Prosecutions: 7/216 deaths; 227/811 “Serious/Life Changing” (“Serious / Life Changing” is an unofficial category Something like x5 more people are reported as being “Seriously injured”.)
Summonses: 13/216 deaths; 299/811 “Serious / Life Changing”
The chances of the law being enforced in this period:
1. There are prosecutions with 1/30 fatalities.
2. There are summonses with 1/17 fatalities
3. There are prosecutions with 1/18 SIs
4. There are summonses with 1/12 SIs
5. 60% of PIAs are “dealt with”, with 8145 (20%) of all PIAs resulting in a summons
6. 1.8 – 3.6% damage only collisions are “dealt with”.
7. c.2% of drivers in London will be prosecuted each year
8. (I have some confusion over camera cases being separate from overall summonses)
9. I have also not included FPNs
10. The small proportion of bans (0.15% of all people driving in London) is primarily among people involved in mainstream criminal activity.
11. Drivers in London have a chance of being prosecuted once over a 50-year lifetime of driving. In one in 15 cases this will involve a period of being banned. (but note bias towards mainstream criminality)
This indicates that at present there is almost no chance of drivers who endanger cyclists (and others) being charged or prosecuted. The lack of enforcement of road traffic offences is probably the most obvious way in which cyclists’ safety on the streets of London is compromised. In the likely event of road traffic policing being reduced in strength yet further, it might be suggested that there is a dramatic increase in the MPS Cycle Task Force supported by TfL as a way of having some sort of police presence. However it is worthwhile remembering that this unit has only 10 officers and would need to be increased dozens of times over in strength in order to be able to have an effective presence. (There have also been criticisms that the CTF expends an excessive amount of attention on apprehending errant cyclists rather than errant drivers).
There is also disappointment at the lack of success of the Roadsafe initiative, which has had a low level of input from the public, and of that only some 2% of cases have resulted in
prosecution.
3.6: TECHNOLOGY
G. “PRIORITY 3.6.1
Work with the freight industry as a matter of urgency to identify the most appropriate and cost effective safety device (standard specification as well as retro fitting) for large goods
vehicles. Side guards and motion sensors to be considered”.
H. PRIORITY
3.7.1:
Encourage responsible procurement practices throughout the GLA family and the public sector by ensuring fleet operators are FORS registered and receive driver training on cycle safety. Ensure contracts include vehicle specifications, such as the use of improved safety features.
There has been some progress in this area. However, while this area of concern is implicated in 50% of the deaths of cyclists in London, it is implicated in less than 10% of the KSIs in London.
Also there are significant limits to what has been achieved as follows:
1.Training. Less than 20% of lorry drivers (10,000 out of 50,000 drivers regularly using 30,000 lorries on the streets of London) have so far received training in CPC accredited courses dealing with cyclist awareness (Safer Urban Driving and Safer London Driving). Of these the most effective involves on-bike training, which many ofthose accredited do not have. It is also possible to have CPC accreditation without either of these courses. In addition, there are concerns that substantial proportions of the driver community will not have been CPC accredited by the deadline next year anyway. On top of this, it may well be the case that training has limited benefits in the first place.
2.Technology. The most effective devices – sensors etc. are not legal requirements.Other technologies, such as automatic braking systems, or retro-fitting of devices to
minimise the gap between vehicle body and the road to reduce the chances of cyclists or pedestrians being crushed, have hardly been developed.
3. Enforcement. High profile cases have shown how drivers engaging in extreme forms of bad driving (driving when drunk, texting, or with visual impairment) can be behind
into ASL reservoirs by motor vehicles is commonplace. More radical designs of junctions to protect cyclists are hardly on the agenda.
WHAT EFFECT HAS THE CYCLE SAFETY ACTION PLAN HAD?
It is impossible to give an accurate assessment of the work of the Cycle Safety Working Group in progressing the Cycle Safety Action Plan. Nevertheless, I shall try to give an approximate assessment of the possible benefits of the work pursued so far.
Fatal collision between bicycle and goods vehicles 50% deaths
This area may well be the one where there has been most progress. However,
1. The vast majority of cyclist KSIs do not involve HGVs, despite thedisproportionate media coverage of this type of incident.
2. Training of drivers is likely, in my estimation, to address only about ¼ to 1/3 of these incidents as some incidents are beyond the control of drivers and because the evidence on the effects of training indicate that this kind of potential benefit is all that can be expected of road users. This is either because even those with good intentions cannot be expected to always conform to what they have been trained to do, with others not having the willingness to do so. Furthermore, so far only about 10 – 20% of HGV drivers in London have received relevant training, with even less getting the best (on bike) CPC accredited training. My estimate is that this amountsto addressing some 5 – 15% of these incidents, or perhaps up to one cyclist death per year.
3. Training of cyclists is likely to be less effective as there is a far greater population of potential cyclists (about 250 – 300,000 daily with some one million occasional cyclists) than drivers (about 50,000 driving about 30,000 HGVs daily). Evidence suggests that a majority of incidents involve HGVs overtaking and turning left or hitting cyclists from behind, and that there is little cyclists can do in such cases. Insofar as cyclists can avoid being hit by HGVs, the same caveats about the effects of training apply, with the added fact that most cyclists will not have either received cycle training or been affected by publicity campaigns.
4. Procurement of contractors with HGV fleets fitted with appropriate technologies has not been taken up by most Councils , let alone businesses – using HGVs in London.
5. The most appropriate highway designs available have not been implemented. 2 stage (“Going Dutch”) designs may not be applicable, but could be a solution – yet are not in place anywhere. While practitioners are aware of ways of designing junctions to (hopefully) minimise the possibilities of collisions, there is no way of monitoring progress in implementing such forms of junction design. I would argue that no more than 10 – 20% of these incidents have been successfully addressed by all the formal measures pursued by the Cycle Safety Working Group – and this has been the most successful area of its work. It should be mentioned that there has been a significant decline in the rate of cyclists being killed in collisions with HGVs, where the rate is deaths per cyclist journey, over the last decade. Approximately the same number of cyclists are being killed, with a doubling or more of the number of cyclists in the areas where most deaths of this type occur. This has also coincided with a noticeable increase in the number of HGVs here. Some of this decline may have occurred because of the measures referred to above, with
more due to the improvement of mirrors and items like Fresnel lenses, yet a substantial amount appears to have occurred because of the increased presence of cyclists and a consequent affect on the awareness of at least a substantial proportion of lorry drivers. This suggests that increasing the number of cyclists, certainly in areas where speeds are lower and where there is already a noticeable cyclist presence, should have an effect in reducing the cyclist casualty rate ( casualties per journey cycled). This is amplified by the fact that there is a significant amount of publicity (through trade magazines etc.) which lorry drivers are aware of, and a community of drivers who may discuss issues about cyclists.
PUBLICITY AND ENFORCEMENT
Close proximity collision between cyclist and vehicle 30%
Other vehicle turns right across path of cycle 12%
Cyclist hits or swerves to avoid an open door of other vehicle 8%
Other vehicle runs into the rear of cycle 6%
The only measures taken here are some limited publicity campaigns – the least effective of all road safety initiatives. (One of these happens to be running currently, Autumn 2012).These tend to only have any effect if backed up by policing as an effective method achieving compliance by motorists with the requirements of the Highway Code. While inappropriate behaviour by motorists in the vicinity of cyclists may be addressed by the Cyclist Task Force, this consists of just ten officers with a full brief of traffic law infringements. The absence of widespread and persistent policing means that there is likely to have been minimal impact on addressing this kind of incident.
CYCLE TRAINING
Cyclist hits or swerves to avoid an open door of other vehicle 8%
Other vehicle runs into the rear of cycle 6%
Cyclist disobeys junction control 5%
Cyclist rides off footway into the path of vehicle on the carriageway 4%
These incidents can all be ameliorated by cycling in accordance with the behaviours taught in National Standards cycle training. However:
1. The first two types are failures of motorists to drive in accordance with the HighwayCode and the law.
2. Even cyclist behaving according to the correct way of cycling as instructed byNational Standards may still be hit from behind.
3. Even the best students of training programmes cannot be expected to cycle properly at all times.
4. Cycling assertively may lead to abuse from drivers and may not be carried out by less assertive cyclists even if they have had proper training.
5. Most cyclists have not had cycle training and those that have may not have had “training” in accordance with National Standards.
ENGINEERING
Fatal collision between bicycle and goods vehicles 50% deaths
Close proximity collision between cyclist and vehicle 30%
Other vehicle turns right across path of cycle 12%
Cyclist hits or swerves to avoid an open door of other vehicle 8%
Other vehicle runs into the rear of cycle 6%
Many of the above incidents may be remedied by engineering measures. It may well be that some consideration of cyclists in highway engineering has been beneficial for cyclists. However, leaving aside the considerable debate about what kind of highway environment is required for cycling, the effect so far must be small at best. There is little in the way of actual requirements for cyclists with regard to engineering measures. Even though some will argue for little in the way of cycle-specific infrastructure, there are definitely significant issues with substantial amounts of infrastructure – particularly large junctions and gyratory systems – which are a major obstacle to safe cycling.
CONCLUSION
The above report indicates ways in which the CSAP has been inadequate. It also shows that insofar as issues are addressed and attempts made implement necessary changes, the impacts made have been minimal or very limited. Pursuing the overall objectives of the CSAP will require substantially more commitment and resources to achieve a significant reduction in danger to cyclists 9and often other road users) and a reduction in the cyclist casualty rate.
R. Davis Friday 28 th September 2012
POSTSCRIPT FROM THE LATEST MAYOR’S QUESTION TIME:
Safety for Cyclists Question No: 2602 / 2012 Andrew Dismore : “Do you support Bradley Wiggins‘s call at the Olympics after winning his Gold Medal for more safety measures for cyclists in London, and if so, what are you going to do about his suggestions?”
Written response from the Mayor : “Like Bradley Wiggins, I believe we need to do more to make London safer for cycling. That is why I published my Cycle Safety Action Plan which was developed in consultation with stakeholders such as cycle campaign groups, the freight transport association and the Metropolitan police.
During the development of the Plan, in depth analysis identified the key types of collisions that were most likely to result in cyclists being killed or seriously injured. Using this information and additional details as to whom, and where and when these collisions take place, 52 actions were developed to make cycling safer. These include actions to make infrastructure safer, enforcement against anti social road user behaviour, and education and information to help all road users stay safe. The Plan highlights in particular, the need to take action to reduce the number of cyclists killed and injured in collisions with goods vehicles. My Cycle Safety Action Plan along with the 2011 end of year report can be viewed at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/15480.aspx. Furthermore, Transport for London is reviewing the safety of junctions in London. One hundred junctions have been prioritised for improvement, with ten junctions due to be improved before the end of this year.
Road Danger Reduction Forum 