Bank cycle accident rexfeatures_4856858o_creditTolgaAkmenLNPREXShutterstock

Photo by: Tolga Akmen/LNP/REX/Shutterstock

Naturally, the death of a young girl is an emotive subject and the Hub would not blame those who are angry at such circumstances. However, in situations like this, we look to elected officials to lead by example and act upon a balanced view of events in totality.

Unfortunately, it appears that there are multiple examples of electioneering surrounding the death of 26 year old cyclist Ying Tao, who collided with a tipper truck in central London last week – which makes the effort to eliminate such accidents all the more difficult.

One trope is the presumed liability on the part of drivers involved in collisions with cyclists.

In the wake of the accident Caroline Russell, green vouncillor for Highbury East ward in Islington, tweeted: "Phaps [sic] the time has come for all large lorries to be accompanied by a banksman walking ahead on London's streets? Death toll is unacceptable."

The Evening Standard has injected some balance. While reporting on the incident it did mention a tweet from an onlooker which described the driver of the vehicle hovering around the scene of the accident “looking distraught”.

Unfortunately politicians have defaulted to the trope that the industry somehow isn't aware of its responsibilities, or willing to reduce accidents. During this week’s prime minister’s Questions, Ben Bradshaw, MP for Exeter, asked David Cameron to attend a meeting with the all-party parliamentary cycling group to discuss what more can be done to protect vulnerable road users, including the call for a "ban on these killer lorries in our towns and cities at peak times”.

Cameron was less than eloquent in his response. "It seems to me that although a lot has been done in London to try to make cycling safer on our roads with the cycling strategy—money is being invested and cycle lanes are being introduced—the number of fatalities is still very high, and it is extremely depressing that young lives are being snuffed out in this way."

However Bradshaw's comments echoed the call Harriet Harman made last month for HGVs to be banned from the capital during peak times, with Labour Mayoral candidate David Lammy repeating her call for the change.

He said: “My view is that only by banning HGVs from London during rush hour will we give cyclists the protection they need. We’ve got to take bold decisions.”

Aside from the fact the London Lorry Control scheme legally prevents vehicles over 18-tonnes from entering the city centre, the FTA’s deputy chief executive James Hookham believes Lammy’s plan is flawed:

“One death on our roads is one too many and we must all do more to improve safety – cyclists, public authorities, public transport and HGV drivers and operators included. But banning lorries is a simplistic response with massive economic and transport impacts.

HGVs are already banned from unsuitable roads in London. Banning them completely in rush hour would just displace the problem, causing a deluge effect as commercial vehicles arrived at the end of a morning ban. There are also many activities that simply cannot wait until later in the day – bread and fresh food deliveries, catering and hospitality supplies, medical and cleansing services and office supplies.

Banning HGVs would also create new safety issues as one lorry is replaced by about eight vans – not to mention the increased congestion and air pollution that would result.

Plans are underway to redesign lorry cabs for better visibility.  When they are available our members will use them, but that’s not going to happen overnight.  Until then we must all work together to make the busy city roads a safer place for everyone.  Freight transport is already a well regulated sector and more regulations are on their way with the Mayor of London’s Safer Lorry Scheme being introduced from 1 September.”

A narrow majority of the public seem inclined to agree with him. At the time of writing, a poll embedded in a Daily Telegraph debate over whether the ban should move forward revealed that 55% of readers thought its knock-on effects would out-weight the benefits.

The remaining 45% voted in favour of the ban.

Photo credit: Tolga Akmen/LNP/REX/Shutterstock