On Saturday another woman was killed by a lorry in London, and unfortunately it comes as no surprise
• First fatal 'Boris bike' accident in London
Tragically and inevitably yet another cyclist has been crushed under a lorry, again a woman, and this time the first to lose their life while riding a "Boris bike". She was killed on cycle superhighway 2 in east London, near Aldgate East station, on Saturday evening. Of course, it is no surprise; nothing significant has changed since the last cyclist was killed in a collision with a lorry, or the one before that, or the one before that.
While this sad situation will provide another occasion for all the usual arguments and opinions to be wheeled out once again for and against cyclists on the road, much more important are the unvoiced views of a larger segment of the population; casual cyclists who may lose faith in both the hire scheme and the superhighways.
With the cycle hire scheme as popular as it has proved to be, it was only a matter of time before a fatality occurred. With thousands of potentially inexperienced cyclists on the roads every day, it is essential to make those roads as safe as possible to reduce the likelihood of this happening again. It is unrealistic and unfair to put the onus on cyclists to be solely responsible for their own safety in these situations while simultaneously encouraging less confident riders to get on bikes and explore the city.
The danger posed to cyclists by lorries on busy streets is a widely acknowledged and easy to mitigate problem that continues to kill on an all too regular basis. Lorries are involved in about 50% of cyclist deaths in London, and any plan to increase the take up of cycling needs to make addressing this issue a top priority. While no trivial matter, it will be much easier to make legislative changes here than to properly address infrastructure concerns, which although necessary will take time.
The companies that own lorries have a duty of care not just to other road users but also to the drivers they employ. While it would be unwise to make any claims about this particular incident before more details are available (although it should be noted that the driver stopped and has not been arrested), it is possible that if the cyclist was in the vehicle's blind spot there may have been very little the driver could have done to avert the incident. The technology to eliminate blind spots is widely and cheaply available; unfortunately it seems that more cyclists must die before there is the political will to make the use of these innovations compulsory.
As cycling becomes more popular across the UK, it is not good enough to rely on the quick wits of experienced cyclists as our only safety measure. To reap the benefits of increased bike use we must remove the psychological barriers to taking up cycling, and this is a major one. Roads should be safe for cyclists of all abilities, from experienced daily commuters to tourists on their first ride through the city.
The fact that the collision occurred on a cycle superhighway reminds us of the lack of serious planning for cycling infrastructure in London.
Whether you prefer working towards segregated routes or safer shared roads, the glorified bike lanes are a sorry compromise which many drivers have very little respect for. While the quieter stretches are often well marked and away from traffic, at busy intersections such as the one where the accident occurred they can do little more than confer a false sense of security on their users.
This junction is one of many in London where it is much more important to be alert to what's going on around you than it is to be following a blue line on the road. While they are apparently designed to facilitate "safer, faster and more direct journeys into the city", to suggest that being on a superhighway at this junction gives you even the most minimal protection from other traffic is patently ludicrous.
According to a Metropolitan police spokesperson, the cyclist was not wearing a helmet. While wearing one would have been unlikely to have saved her in a collision with a HGV, the fact remains that the cycle hire scheme reduces the percentage of helmeted cyclists on the roads.
We can expect more fatalities in the future from interactions between cycle hire bikes and vehicles other than lorries, against which helmets offer little protection.
As has been proved by the repeated failure of cycle hire schemes in cities with compulsory helmet use such as Melbourne and Brisbane these laws are inimical to uptake of public bike share facilities. Tel Aviv's Telofun scheme only took off once helmet laws were effectively repealed for urban riders, an example followed by Mexico City in the run-up to the launch of its Ecobici scheme.
If we are to have lorries on our streets, and we must, they need to be adapted to take into account the other users of the city, including the casual cyclists who use the cycle hire scheme. We have had enough wake-up calls, and our sluggish response is beginning to look like ambivalence. The infrastructure debate will roll on, with big promises and inadequate funding commitments. But legislation to make lorries safer is long overdue.