Karen Dee and victim-blaming

[glenn forger]

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...rt-association-accused-of-victim-blaming.html

Campaigners and cyclists have condemned the Freight Transport Association's stance on cyclist safety and accused the organisation of "victim blaming" after its Director of Policy said cyclists should take more responsibility for their own safety around lorries.

The FTA's Karen Dee's comments followed yesterday's announcement on London and UK-wide measures intended to crack down on lorry danger for cyclists and pedestrians.

The London Cycling Campaign (LCC) said the FTA's remark that there are better ways of achieving road safety and cyclists should obey the rules of the road, "inaccurately sought to apportion blame to cyclists for the deaths and injuries they suffer in collisions with lorries".

LCC Chief Executive Ashok Sinha said, "This is an unfounded exercise in victim-blaming by the FTA.
"There's clear evidence that cyclist competence and behaviour is not the chief contributory factor in the majority of deaths and injuries caused by collisions with lorries.

Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...ed-of-victim-blaming.html#YmL7uoi6uVYmpShj.99

The FTA, whose members number 220,00 vehicles, represents the interests of road freight companies, and half of all lorries on UK roads.


The FTA have agreed to respond to a number of questions put to them by Cycling Weekly. We are currently awaiting that response.
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...ed-of-victim-blaming.html#YmL7uoi6uVYmpShj.99

The Freight Trade Association is right that road users must ride or drive responsibly. Yes, there is a problem with some cyclists not obeying some traffic regulations.

However, every single time the police conduct tests on lorries in London, they find a swathe of the industry content to regularly break the law - overloaded, dodgy tachometers, dodgy safety features. When the City of London conducted spot checks on lorries in 2008, 100% (yes, that's right, 100%) of the lorries stopped at random were breaking the law in some way. Spot checks in Wales recently found 80% of all HGVs were breaking the law.

Or, let's just remember Mary Bowers, The Times journalist hit by a lorry in 2011. The driver was on the phone (hands-free) at the time and then "and then failed to put the handbrake on when she was trapped under his wheels". The driver had previously admitted a series of tachograph offences, "including driving a lorry for 20 hours in one day when the maximum is 9 hours". Jurors concluded he had been "too engrossed in a telephone conversation with a work colleague, on a hands-free mobile kit, when he knocked Ms Bowers off her bike". He then tried to deny he'd even been on the phone in the first place and subsequently pleaded guilty to (again!) "driving in excess of the permitted hours".

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.gr/2013/09/freight-association-declares-war-on.html

Unbelievably callous and unthinking.

 

[mattobrien]

I tend to work to the lowest denominator, presuming that everyone has the capability of doing something stupid / having a momentary lapse of concentration.

Therefore, I try not to put myself in a position where I can be the victim of another actions, thus minimising the risk.

As road users, we all have a responsibility for our own actions, but we have a responsibility to try to predict others actions and to adapt accordingly. A bit like driving a car on a motorway - little actual driving required, more observation of traffic in front and behind and responding accordingly, than judging what speed and line are best for a particular corner.

Hopefully the better we can all be at this, the safer the roads will be for all users.

 

[DiddlyDodds]

I have never been killed or injured (as far as I am aware) by HGV's, and because of one very simple solution, I stay well away from them.
At junctions I never go up the side or in front of them, on main roads i make sure i am aware of them and give plenty of space, even to the point of waving them through if we are approaching any small gaps.
I agree with the article that cyclists should look after them selves and be aware of their actions, HGV drivers do not go out with the intention of squashing people, cyclist's should spend some time in a HGV so see the blind spots and appreciate the lack of room for these trucks through towns and city's.

 

[glenn forger]

Cyclists creeping up the inside of HGVs hasn't been a factor in cyclist's deaths in London. Dee is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[albion]

I stay well clear too but 2 days ago I got knocked over by a car turning right onto the busy main road I was turning off.

I was lucky that the impact from the school run driver was at 45 degrees. But if it had been a HGV suddenly entering the main road I'd likely be a goner.

 

[albion]

What I would say that if it was a route I knew I could just maybe have been more aware of any possibility of murderous intentions 'sun in eyes' manoeuvring.

 

[snorri]

.
HGV drivers do not go out with the intention of squashing people, cyclist's should spend some time in a HGV so see the blind spots and appreciate the lack of room for these trucks through towns and city's.

I doubt anyone would claim HGV drivers go out with evil intentions, but take a look at the letter by Gordon Seabright linked to in post 5 in the FTA thread in Campaign, criminality appears to be the norm in the industry, and it's not all down to the drivers. If there is insufficient room for HGVs in our towns and cities why are they permitted almost unfettered access?

 

[TheJDog]

Cyclists creeping up the inside of HGVs hasn't been a factor in cyclist's deaths in London. Dee is barking up the wrong tree.

What London are you referring to?

 

[Tcr4x4]

there is insufficient room for HGVs in our towns and cities why are they permitted almost unfettered access?

Because if they weren't, you wouldn't have anything you own.

People want shops open 24 hours a day, they want supermarkets fully stocked, they want thier latest 100inch flat screen delivered to thier door the next day.

All this stuff is delivered by lorries.

In actual fact, there are many roads around and in cities that lorries can't go.. You try driving one to a city destination and you'll soon see how much of a headache it is, avoiding all the weight and width restrictions.

It really is simple, if you are on a bike, stay behind a lorry.. Don't go down the left of it, don't go down the right of it, stay behind it until it either turns off or accelerates ahead of you. Yes in a ideal world, cyclists and HGVs should be able to co exist, but its not an ideal world, and 40 tons of metal against 80kg of flesh is never going to end well. If you don't put yourself in the path of danger, the chances are, you will be ok. There will always be accidents, but its much easier to put yourself as a cyclist in a situation where you minimise the risk than it is as an HGV driver.

 

[glenn forger]

Because if they weren't, you wouldn't have anything you own.

Not true, an awful lot of lorry journeys are unnecessary and down to poor planning. Lots of freight could easily be moved to rail or river, but the point remains that risky behaviour by cyclists isn't a significant factor in HGV deaths, usually it's the driver's fault.

 

[Tcr4x4]

Try it another way around.

A lorry turning left on a city road has a tiny area to manoeuvre and very limited visibility.

A cyclist has a lot of room and a lot of visibility and can stay behind until the manoeuvre is completed and the lorry has gone.

What would you suggest the lorry does when trying to turn left? He can't see a cyclist, so must presume it is safe to turn. You want the lorry to stop, the driver to jump out, put barriers out and then complete the turn?

Its simple.. Stay out of the way until the lorry has gone.

 

[Tcr4x4]

Perhaps you'd like to say that simplistic nonsense to the family of Mary Bowers - who was waiting in an advanced stop zone at a red light when the lorry that killed her came up behind her and turned left over her when the lights changed? It really is not that simple.

Like I said, there will always be accidents and there will always be times when either an HGV or a cyclist is to blame.

Most cases could be prevented by the cyclist keeping back. Occasions where the cyclist is already in front and the HGV flattens them is different and the driver should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[glenn forger]

Once again, that is not how most accidents happen. The cyclist has done nothing wrong and the lorry driver overtakes and turns left, like the driver who killed Cynthia Barlow's daughter, or the driver is pissed, like Catriona Patel's killer, or has faulty eyesight, like Eilidh Cairn's killer.

 

[glenn forger]

Most cases could be prevented by the cyclist keeping back.

That is simply not true.

 

[Tcr4x4]

That is simply not true.

Ok, some cases then. As a cyclist and HGV driver, I see both sides.. I've been in a truck and had cyclists come flying down the left hand side when I've been indicating to turn left.. I've also been a cyclist and had trucks overtake then turn left in front of me.

My point is, as a cyclist we are vulnerable and should take whatever measures we can to limit danger. If that means treating all truck drivers like idiots that are likely to kill us in any minute, then so be it. I'd rather be behind a lorry and let it get out of the way, than try get past it and have it suddenly decide to turn left and squash me.

Of course you can't plan for every scenario.. A truck overtaking you and then turning left on you without warning is some thing that you can't really do much about, other than hope you see it happening and can stop in time.

There are good and bad tuck drivers, there are good and bad cyclists.

I try and be as courteous and aware on both modes of transport as I can, sadly not everyone is like me.