- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Lavender Hill junction.PNGCycling campaigners called for Battersea road changes months before waitress death
Calls from cycling campaigners for an update of road safety policies on the London road where Italian cyclist Lucia Ciccioli was killed this week were rebuffed by Wandsworth Council in August. The council said that procedures on the road would only be reviewed if three people are killed or 12 are seriously injured within 50 metres of one another.
Jon Irwin is the campaigner who was turned away by Wandsworth Council in August, and revealed the reasons for the council's lack of action over the following two months to the Standard newspaper last week.
The council told Irwin that the Lavender Hill road where Ciccioli was killed last week is managed by Transpot for London, and that updating the infrastructure on that road was not its responsibility.
A Londoner himself, Irwin from Tooting, said that his focus is changing the guidelines that stop councils taking preventative action.
"What I want to see done is have these guidelines changed," the 36-year old cyclist told the Standard. "I'm lucky that I'm not campaigning burdened with the trauma of having lost somebody on the roads.
"Every time you see this happen you think, ‘it could have been me or it could have been one of my mates. To have that happen and get told, ‘your statistic isn’t enough’ – this needs to stop.
“Every tragedy needs to be reviewed in itself; no one should have to lose their life to have things changed.”
>Read more: Cyclist killed in London HGV collision named as Lucia Ciccioli - SKC organise die-in
Ciccioli, the cyclist who was killed in a collision with a HGV last week had been living in London for four years and working as a waitress for a chain of Vietnamese restaurants.
The driver of the HGV stopped following the collision, but has not been arrested. The Met Police are currently investigating the incident.
Immediately after the incident was reported by the Standard, Jon Irwin tweeted that the HGV pictured, which emerged later as the HGV involved in Ciccioli's death, "has zero visibility up to four metres in front of the cab."
If the lorry involved is the one in the picture, my understanding is that the driver has zero visibility up to 4m in front of the cab. https://t.co/xHWVGZa2a1
— Jon Irwin (@JonIrwinLD) October 24, 2016
Infrastructure campaigner at the London Cycling Campaign, Simon Monk, responded to the incident by saying that "we need a city that is accessible and safe for cyclists and pedestrians," highlighting that vulnerable road users are often afraid to use gyratories and multi-lane roundabouts.
"We are finding that at certain places where there has been a fatality things are getting done to prevent it happening again but it takes a long time and a lot of pressure from campaigners to see things change."
“TfL and Sadiq Khan are working to roll-out a cycle safety schemes but these things take years.”
Friends of Ciccioli said that she had been warned about cycling in London, but said that "she's quite a headstrong person."
Sam Ladjemi, a friend of Ciccioli's said "
"She didn’t always listen to other people’s advice, but she was very careful and I think she always had her head screwed on.
“She was such a bubbly, helpful and friendly waitress and that is why everyone is in such shock."
Campaign group Stop Killing Cyclists are set to hold a die-in at the junction of Lavender Hill and Elspeth Road, where the incident took place on Monday October 31 at 5.30pm.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 20 min 31 sec ago
Apologies - you're quite right! Something about presentation and comprehension...
- wtjs 41 min 12 sec ago
You can find out whether they're lying about 'taking action' by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various...
- Bungle_52 57 min 14 sec ago
Blind spots eh. Just a reminder of the lorry driver who was aquitted after killing a cyclist on a roundabout where the jury obviously felt it was...
- GMBasix 1 hour 27 min ago
But don't forget to correct for altitude.
- chrisonabike 5 hours 25 min ago
Also don't forget - Sustrans are a charity *....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 37 min ago
Yes ... but (just due to the large numbers of people affected) this likely would only proceed in the UK at a very ... cautious ... pace....
- EK Spinner 5 hours 54 min ago
Arsehole in the van not with standing, how did they manage to get a risk assessment allowing a race (a group not a TT) group to be competing on ...
- RafaDy 5 hours 50 min ago
I think reviewer completely missed the point here trying to match bike's name with what it can do. Ribble is namin git's bike weirdly, the...
- Moist von Lipwig 9 hours 15 min ago
Bit of googling gone wrong in the article - the JAT is the Junction Assessment Tool, the Joint Approval Team appears to be a coutner terrorism...
Add new comment
14 comments
After three deaths they will improve things by writing "SLOW" in big letters on the road.
similar experience to OldRidgeback above - tried to challenge the council's crude use of KSI data as the only criteria to review for a crossing citing really need to look at how people choose to get to school and how people choose not to walk on pavements/try to cross roads they perceive as dangerous - hence lowish KSI but high intimidation and hence low pedestrian cyclist activity - once you get this argument through the next is lack of money - so have to challenge the fractional part of the roads budget that goes to pedestrian/cyclist safety - very easy for council officers and councillors just to say pot is X and is allocated - why is the pot X?
-Only people who can change the thinking are the councillors - when political will takes over then its amazing what can be looked at and where money can be found - lobbying individual councillors is the only way forward - got a crossing in the end following school kids writing to local councillors
- of course not popular with everyone got a few finger pointing in the face parents telling me that I was delaying them getting to work on time!
I tried along with some other parents and the head of the school to get a crossing at the junction changed near the primary school my kids attended. This proved fruitless. There were several crashes at the juncion but as only one was fatal, nothing was done. The matter was made harder because the council said it was the responsibility of TfL and TfL said it was the responsibility of the council.
My kids now go to secondary school and no longer use the dangerous crossing. But I'm told the crashes (and risk) continue.
As Ive been saying for a long time with all cycling campaigns, its no good trying to be nice and talk sense with people, signing petitions or laying in the road for 5 minutes on a 'die-in'.
The only way that notice wil be taken and acted on is by blockading those junctions/dangerous infra at peak times and causing disruption. Then doing it regularly and repeatedly, even risking possible arrest.
I agree with Jon Irwin that the guidelines are wrong. I've been told the same thing by North Yorkshire County Council - people have to be killed or injured on a road, otherwise they won't do anything.
It's fine to look at the overall situation at a particular junction, to see if it's generally safe, or if there are a lot of near misses or crashes. But having a rigid rule about the number of people who have to be killed (1) prevents the council using intelligence and common sense and (2) is offensive.
I spotted these after taking a closer look at the junction on streetview. Two drivers passing one another in the middle, one staring at their phone, the other holding it to their ear.
https://goo.gl/0gqNcC
The council may have explained that crash locations are looked at with regards levels of crashes that have happened. It is hard to justify spending money on a location with no crashes when down the road there are locations with multiple crashes. There is not endless funds so the council view makes some sense although the way it is explained does not demonstrate it very eell.
The council may have explained that crash locations are looked at with regards levels of crashes that have happened. It is hard to justify spending money on a location with no crashes when down the road there are locations with multiple crashes. There is not endless funds so the council view makes some sense although the way it is explained does not demonstrate it very eell.
Wandsworth have history opposing cycling improvements, even when expenditure is either minimal or from TfL. They've managed to water down the already poor QW4 changes to the point where they do next to nothing.
The whole area around Lavender Hill, Battersea and between Clapham and Wandsworth Common is a dense network of mostly quiet residential streets. Yet barely a single road has been filtered (which is the cost of a bollard), and is full of fast rat running traffic throughout the daytime.
Despite that, it's one of the London boroughs where cycling is growing the fastest. Entirely down to its location and routes on TfL roads (CS7, CS8, into town via Vauxhall Bridge).
Despite this they still seem to think it is okay to take the credit for increases in cycling in the borough. Adding insult to actual injury, and death in this case
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/13459/wandsworth_residents_emb...
Yep, I've had a few online exchanges with Wandsworth councillors boasting about their cycling growth. It's fun to correct them about why that is, and their own failure to keep up with their residents. Pointing to them screwing up the Quietway routes usually does the trick.
I'll try to head up there in about an hour. Anyone bitching about SKC is welcome to try and organise their own protest, rather than moan about the work of others "for a long time".
What the fuck? Three people have to die before they'll even review it?!
What's that? One to raise concerns, two to make sure, and three to take the piss?
Battersea bike crash:
Evening Standard - Saturday 29 October 2016
...However he was told by council bosses that rules on safety procedures on the road, and nearby Queenstown Road, will only be reviewed if three people are killed or 12 seriously injured within a certain distance of each other.
The council said Lavender Hill is managed by Transport for London and that it was not a matter for them...
The struggle to get improvements in despite the deliberate actions of pro-motoring, pro-pollution, pro-rat-running/hit&running, speedophiles and other assorted variants of humanity, is taking a long time - even in Sadiq's 'London to be a by-word for cycling' capital.
Some major shifts in law, funding, outlook, procedure, ruling etc are needed.
Too much time and effort to get in the tiniest bit of road space just now.
Too much carping from the windscreen-viewers with their blind prejudice and arrogance that means that in all too mant areas, cycling as a choice remains effectively banned.
News like this creates anger - which is tiring - but then you have to go back and get on with the keeping up of the pressure in this age of post-truth.
Shit. Another cyclist dead, but there still doesn't appear to be any way of challenging road safety assessments by the authorities, even though it is obvious and clear that the roads aren't safe.
Vulnerable road users need to be able to bring the authorities to book when they get it wrong, before someone dies, not after.