Panic Needs Anything Yesterday; Pro-action Just Wants Something Now

Andrew Gilligan’s response to the spate of recent cycling tragedies certainly raised debate among the Guardian’s readership – both cyclists and non-cyclists alike had their analyses.  Here, Danni Lapham has her say…

Changes need to be and can be made with immediate effect, though the conversation ought to shift from that of long-term infrastructure changes and 10-year plans, to that of those practices and procedures that can be implemented now.

Andrew Gilligan correctly mentioned that to ban lorries from London during rush-hour would have had an impact on only 2 of the 14 deaths that have befallen this year (those others did not occur during rush-hour, or were not the result of a collision with an HGV).  But that is not to say that large vehicles don’t need a major review of procedures currently in place, accompanied by rigorous application of updated enforcement standards.  I merely need to point out that – under strict interpretation of the law – tipper trucks, for example, do not need to be fitted with side-guards.  This is clearly unacceptable and has not been addressed since Boris announced the DfT would be reviewing current exemptions to HGV regulations last September.

These past two weeks, I feel as though the safety issue at large has been side-stepped in favour of playground scuffles on headphone wearers and helmets, ‘stuck-in-the-mud” tag teams and teacher bans on lorries as though they were the latest version of Tamagotchi.  Banning lorries during rush-hour does not make lorries any safer.  And – from a selfish point of view – as somebody who often leaves for work before rush-hour, does not make me any safer.  Besides, aren’t we forgetting that one fatality and another serious injury in the past couple of weeks involved buses? These large vehicles account for their fair-share of accidents too and though it is wrong to look at them collectively (TFL have a grating habit of grouping buses with trucks in their stats), it is also wrong to condemn one outright without looking at the other.

You see, it is all very well campaigning for Strict Liability but we cannot possibly expect to make a driver automatically liable for something as serious as a road fatality or serious injury when we have not taken every care to ensure that we have given our drivers all the tools and training necessary to empower them to see near-side cyclists and other vulnerable road-users. There are many cyclists of the opinion that, yes, they already have these tools and if they don’t they shouldn’t be on the road at all.  The hardline is that they don’t already have these tools and they are on the road.  On a road they have to share.  On a road not made for sharing.

So where do cyclist – detection sensors come into all of this? If Transport Research Laboratory are to believed, according to their most recent All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) presentation, the technology is wedged somewhere between Dutch roundabouts and bus stop islands.  Its benefits to cyclists and drivers were covered by TRL’s Marcus Jones in little over a minute, as part of their quest for London’s cycling utopia.  Forgive me if I sound a little glib – don’t get me wrong, it is fantastic that TRL sees Cycle Alert and RFID technology as forming a part of their ideal, but why should we wait when the technology already exists?

When major private hauliers such as Eddie Stobart have successfully trialled and extended an arm in support at what the industry sees as a potentially life-saving piece of equipment, why do government bodies – who, needless to say should be setting the safety benchmark and are not - exercise indolence in putting Cycle Alert on to buses and into schools?

Sensors on all large vehicles should be mandatory, that is my belief.  I believe Cycle Alert will save lives.  Two sets of lives.  The lives of those cyclists killed in collisions with large vehicles, and the lives of those drivers who made those journeys – lest we forget that no driver sets off to work intent on harming a cyclist and devastating a family.

Feel free to disagree.  I welcome indignation, adulation, exasperation or whatever kind of ‘-ation’ you got in you on the subject of sensors.

What I urge you kindly not to do though is treat the issue with ambivalence.

This Friday’s Stop the Killing of Cyclists “Die-in” and Vigil no doubt serves us as a reminder that the issue is too important for that.