A cyclist sustained serious leg injuries at London Bridge yesterday morning following a collision involving a left-turning skip lorry – the latest in a long series of incidents in the capital involving such vehicles, many of which have resulted in bike riders losing their lives.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman, quoted in the London Evening Standard, said: "Police were called to reports of a collision between a lorry and a cyclist on Duke Street Hill at the junction with London Bridge Walk at 7.31am.
"The cyclist is thought to be a woman her in late 20s. She has been taken to a central London hospital with leg injuries which are not thought to be life-threatening".
According to a report on Letsrecycle.com, the vehicle is believed to belong to Greenwich-based business Toulouse Plant Hire, although the website received no response when it contacted the company for confirmation.
The livery of that lorry is similar to one that was involved in a crash in which 20-year-old Spanish national David Poblet lost his life in March 2011, with the vehicle pictured in an article on local news website LondonSE1.co.uk.
That fatal collision took place around half a mile the location of yesterday’s incident, at the junction of Tanner Street, Jamaica Road and Tooley Street.
In a blog post from May 2012 Mark Treasure, chair of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, suggests that the lorry involved in that incident may have been on its way to the site where The Shard was being built at the time.
It’s one of four deaths of cyclists in the area that he said may be related to construction of what is now the tallest building in London – although only one of those vehicles was actually confirmed as working on the site – and in his article, Treasure outlines his belief that tight schedules may have partly been to blame.
Earlier this week, we reported how the developers of what will be the tallest skyscraper across the Thames in the City of London, 22 Bishopsgate, are introducing a phased delivery plan that will seek to minimise movement of heavy vehicles during the daytime and thereby improve the safety of cyclists.
The move was welcomed by the London Cycling Campaign, although they also called for developers to use only ‘direct vision’ lorries, which give drivers improved visibility, during the building’s construction.
Add new comment
40 comments
I've had this company scare the hell out of me before https://youtu.be/35cR5_MPyDc
...and how much would that redesign cost and how many lorries would have to be changed and how much are large commercial vehicles involved in the transport of goods in the society that we have right now?
Yes, it's a great idea, yes, it's a good thing to aim for, but it's not going to happen for a good number of years yet.
...so, it's important for both drivers and cyclists to be aware of the shortcomings of our present system, and for people in general not to apportion blame without knowing about the specific details of each incident.
What is the lifespan of the average lorry, well under 10 years?
We need to implement the redesign NOW so that all new lorries have no blind spots and then let it filter through so that the vast majority of lorries meet them in say 10 years.
But what will happen is that vested interests will drag their feet, it will take 10 years to get a decision and then another 10 years for the changes to work through the on road fleets
in my view we should move asap to a system where you cannot drive lorries or any big vehicle especially in our cities unless you CAN see cyclists and anyone else who may be near your vehicle at all times. This can be done by redesigning lorries so drivers can see. There should be no blind spots.
Why should we let lorries onto the roads with cyclists, free to turn and crush cyclists without seeing them?
As above, apportioning blame without details of the incident is premature.
We don't have segregation, we don't have ideal infrastructure, and both drivers and cyclists need to be aware when sharing roads.
Interesting the connection to the Shard - which has a lot of Qatari money in it. Fancy them being involved in construction-related deaths.
Without looking at blame, there are a couple of observations:
I can only see two possibilities:
1) Driver moved so cyclist was placed in blind spot.
2) Cyclist moved into blind spot.
Without any concrete evidence either way, it is incorrect to begin to apportion blame.
Unless of course it is the blame for the madness that allowed us to get into a situation where drivers are expected to drive vehicles where they can't see other road users.
But, really, cyclists shouldn't need special knowledge about lorry blind spots to survive. They should be kept safe by virtue of the road infrastructure. Segregated cycle paths means that safety is designed in. Then anyone from the ages of eight to eighty could use a bicycle for urban transport.
I can only see two possibilities:
1) Cyclist was in a blind spot. Then I'd suggest a vehicle of this size shouldn't be on the road if it has blind spots.
2) Cyclist wasn't in a blind spot. Then I'd suggest the driver shouldn't be on the road.
I hope she has a speedy recovery.
Pages