Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Boris Johnson accused of victim-blaming over London cyclist deaths

Round-up of reaction to news of fifth cyclist fatality in London this month

Mayor of London Boris Johnson has said cyclists need to take responsibility for their own safety following a nine-day period in which collisions with large vehicles claimed the lives of five cyclists in the capital. While he clearly states he wasn’t trying to blame the victims in those specific incidents, an opposition politician has accused him of doing just that, describing his remarks as “an insult to the dead.”

Speaking to radio station LBC’s Nick Ferrari this morning, Mr Johnson maintained that cyclists were obliged to follow the rules of the road and to comply with traffic signs.

He said: “Some of the cases that we've seen in the last few days really make your heart bleed because you can see that people have taken decisions that really did put their lives in danger.

"You cannot blame the victim in these circumstances. But what you can say is that when people make decisions on the road that are very risky – jumping red lights, moving across fast-moving traffic in a way that is completely unexpected and without looking to see what traffic is doing – it's very difficult for the traffic engineers to second-guess that."

No suggestion has been made by police investigating the five fatalities this month, three of which occurred on or near Barclays Cycle Superhighway CS2 in east London, that the people who died were riding their bikes in such a way as to endanger their own lives.

On Twitter this morning, Labour’s former transport secretary Lord Adonis had urged Mr Johnson to take action, saying: "The mayor should appoint a rapid independent review of superhighways after the horror of all these cyclist deaths in London."

However, rejecting calls for an urgent review of the safety of cyclists in the city, Mr Johnson said that unless riders complied with traffic laws, "there's no amount of traffic engineering that we invest in that is going to save people's lives."

Quoted in the Guardian, Green London Assembly member Darren Johnson accused the Mayor of victim blaming and of "dodging responsibility."

He pointed out: “Four out of the five deaths of cyclists in the last nine days have involved either his blue paint or his red buses.

"The mayor's comments this morning which targeted cyclists breaking the law as the primary cause of death and serious injury is an attempt to blame the victims, rather than tackling the real problem of HGVs, buses and dangerous junctions.

"It is an insult to the dead and injured that the mayor continues to blame victims in this way, rather than accepting his responsibility and getting on with fixing the things he has direct control over."

The succession of fatalities has seen other high profile politicians call for segregated cycle lanes, such as that on the new section of CS2, opened last week. The original route from Aldgate to Bow has no such segregation.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told LBC: "Distressing as all this is, I really hope it doesn't discourage people from bicycling – it's got to be made safer and we have got to have more of these bicycling superhighways which physically separate cyclists from roads.

The Liberal Democrat leader added: "We as a government have said we want to make new road schemes fit for cyclists and at the same time we'll look at every other suggestion to make this a safe thing to do."

The Mayor’s own Cycling Commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, whom he appointed to that position earlier this year, cautioned against taking hasty action but criticised CS2.

He told BBC London: "The danger in the current atmosphere of understandable alarm and concern is that we rush into some panic measure which actually makes things worse.”

However, Mr Gilligan added: "From the beginning, Superhighway 2 has been little more than blue paint and I've been pressing to change it."

National cyclists’ organisation CTC meanwhile called for new drivers of large vehicles such as lorries, buses and coaches – all three types of vehicle have been involved in fatalities of cyclists in London this month – to have to undertake cycle training before they are granted a licence.

The appeal comes as the government prepares to publish a green paper regarding the training and testing of such vehicles.

CTC’s policy director, Roger Geffen, said: “We will investigate further options for reducing the number of large vehicles in urban centres at busy periods.

“Options that the organisation has considered in the past include banning lorries from city centres at peak periods and locating  distribution centres on the outskirts of cities.”

Its chief executive, Gordon Seabright, added: "CTC and all cyclists are sickened by the continuing failure to protect cyclists, in particular from the  dangers caused by lorries in our towns and cities. We want to see The Mayor of London and all those responsible for the safety of our streets living up to their promises.”

Martin Key, campaigns director at British Cycling, called for a national cycle awareness initiative to be launched.

"The fact that five cyclists have been killed in London in the last nine days is shocking news and an urgent investigation needs to take place into what could have been done to prevent these deaths," he commented.

"We have to do a better job of looking after each other on the roads.

"That includes significant investment in a nationwide cyclist awareness campaign rather than a few posters in a handful of cities.

“This is about changing the culture of how people get around, making cycling a more attractive and safer option for millions of people across Britain."
In its editorial today, the London Evening Standard says that “We can be a cycling city to rival any other in Europe: we just have to want to make it happen.”

The newspaper says:

The cyclist killed last night on one of London’s cycle superhighways, at Aldgate, is the fifth to die in nine days. The total killed this year in the capital is now 13. It is a reminder of the inadequacies and dangers of the blue cycling superhighways. As Debbie Dorling, the widow of the first cyclist to be killed on one, observes, these are little more than “comfort blankets”, giving cyclists a false sense of security on dangerous roads while mostly failing to segregate them from traffic.

The fatalities are tragic — though they should be put in context. Most London cyclists get to work each day without incident. Annual deaths have stayed roughly the same over the past decade, despite a huge increase in the numbers cycling: cycling is proportionately safer than it was. And motorists generally seem to be more conscious of the vulnerability of cyclists than they were even five years ago. This is, moreover, a dangerous time of year, with cycle commuters riding in the dark or dusk.

But a cycling city, which London aspires to be, cannot be safe only in summer and in optimal conditions: it must be safe in the dark and rain too. The Mayor has already launched his scheme for a safe cycling network, and says he will install CCTV at Bow to study the problems. Now he must go much further. We should consider an independent review into cycle safety in London. And we need a plan to transform the city’s cycle lanes and junctions, making much greater use of segregated lanes. TfL must now treat this as a transport priority.

This is a question of political will, not physical road space: other changes to our roads once branded unthinkable, such as bus lanes and the congestion charge, are now accepted parts of the system. London is a working city with a multiplicity of road users — cyclists, pedestrians, car and lorry drivers. Yet it should be possible for all of us to share the roads, given decent provision and mutual consideration. We can be a cycling city to rival any other in Europe: we just have to want to make it happen.

 

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

42 comments

Avatar
oozaveared replied to GoingRoundInCycles | 11 years ago
0 likes

MadDog Madill wrote:
The fault of any accident should automatically lie with the motor-vehicle driver until proved otherwise.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote in reply:
"What exactly would be the point of blaming the (potentially) innocent for an accident that could not be avoided?"

The point is called "strict liability" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

and it applies in all kinds of safety laws. It's a pretty common concept to apply to dangerous equipment, facilities etc. One example might be say an old pit shaft that has the possibility that someone could fall down. It wouldn't be enough for the liable person or company simply to put up a notice or a small barrier and then say that people had ignored the notice and kids should not have climbed over the barrier. They are liable by default if someone falls down the hole.

They do have a defence to that. If they showed that they installed a virtually impregnable fence and maintained it and that the victim had taken extremem measures to get into the hole then that is a good defence.

What is the purpose? To ensure that people or organisations operating hazardous equipment or facilities act in a way that they can show that they took every possible precaution to avoid that hazard becoming a problem.

This would help cyclists and pedestrians if applied to motorised transport. Their responsibility would change to having to operate the vehicle not merely within the law but in a fashion that put the duty of care at the top of their concerns.

Practically it would mean that in an accident with a pedestrian or a cyclist the motorist would need to show that they took every possible precaution to avoid a collision not merely that they didn't technically break any rules or that if they did it was only one person's word against another.

Another example might be a gun owner out shooting at pheasant or rabbit who ends up shooting another person. Currently they are under strict liability. They can't merely say they weren't expecting someone to be behind a hedge or that a beater wasn't wearing bright enough clothing. If someone gets shot it's their responsibility. They are the ones operating the lethal weapon. Much like drivers are.

Oozaveared Cyclist, motorcyclist, motorist and pedestrian member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists and the CTC.

Avatar
GoingRoundInCycles replied to oozaveared | 11 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

Practically it would mean that in an accident with a pedestrian or a cyclist the motorist would need to show that they took every possible precaution to avoid a collision not merely that they didn't technically break any rules or that if they did it was only one person's word against another.

For sure, a mining company can demonstrate that they have installed the correct equipment and produce a paper trail to demonstrate that sufficient maintenance and training are regularly carried out.

But in the case of a collision, how could a motorist prove that he is innocent? Short of having 360 degree external cameras with night vision permanently recording, live audio recording, telemetry recording every driving input and cameras recording the activities of the driver and passengers within the car ... I don't see how what you ask for is at all feasible.

Of course after an accident, the car should be checked thoroughly for roadworthiness, the driver for the presence of drugs/alcohol and CCTV and eyewitnesses used to gather independent data but I see no benefit to assuming that the driver is guilty rather than innocent, while this investigation is carried out.

Avatar
kie7077 replied to GoingRoundInCycles | 11 years ago
0 likes
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

but I see no benefit to assuming that the driver is guilty rather than innocent, while this investigation is carried out.

Drivers attitudes, it isn't about when it's too late and an accident has happened, the reason for this system it to recognise the HGV -> Car -> Bike - Pedestrian hierarchy of vulnerability, currently when I complain at drivers for passing too close or other bad moves the attitude is quite often 'I don't give a sh*t'. The change in law is to make the bastards give a shit.

If drivers/cyclists understand that when an accident happens, they will be held responsible and have to account for their actions, they might just change their ways. Right now drivers don't have to properly account for their actions, they can just give a flippant excuse and that's it, they're done, responsibility be damned.

I don't mind being held responsible for the safety of pedestrians that I cycle round in this way, why should any good driver mind?

25% of cyclists deaths are attributable to a motor vehicle driver attempting to drive too close to the cyclist.

Avatar
Lungsofa74yearold | 11 years ago
0 likes

Plus 1 to squired's comments.

Avatar
bikewithnoname | 11 years ago
0 likes

lets be clear Boris explicitly didn't blame the victims.

Although I agree that change is needed.

Avatar
MadDog Madill replied to bikewithnoname | 11 years ago
0 likes
bikewithnoname wrote:

lets be clear Boris explicitly didn't blame the victims.

Although I agree that change is needed.

In much the same way that I'm NOT explicitly calling Boris and adulterer.

I think we need to bare in mind that people who hold public office and find it hard to keep their winky in their trousers and then lie about it, even though a love child might be involved, can't expect the voting public to have any respect for them when they start talking about matter of great importance.

Avatar
farrell replied to bikewithnoname | 11 years ago
0 likes
bikewithnoname wrote:

lets be clear Boris explicitly didn't blame the victims.

That's because he is not an idiot. He is a very intelligent, powerful, well connected individual.

He is also fucking evil.

He plays the bumbling idiot role well, but its just a front to draw people in. Like here for example, when you go back and go over his words he hasn't explicitly blamed the victims, he has however planted in peoples minds that they are at fault. This is a common tool used by Johnson. His responses are fully measured and deliberate to deflect as much blame or responsibility away from him whilst appearing to be sincere. The floppy haired fop nonsense brilliantly hides what a hateful, malevolent bastard he is.

If I saw him under the wheels of a car on one of his death trap cycle highways I'd climb on the car and push it down further.

Horrible tory filth.

Avatar
squired | 11 years ago
0 likes

To be fair to Boris, it may well be that he has had access to more detail about each incident and how exactly it happened. Should that be the case, his comments could have some weight behind them. Having said that, there is always the option that he didn't have such detail. My assumption though would be the former because one would expect someone in his position to be privvy to such information.

I certainly know from people who were on the scene at one of the incidents that the victim apparently performed an extremely stupid manouvre.

As for victim blaming, put simply the blame should be placed on whoever it was that was at fault, cyclist or driver.

Avatar
Goldfever4 replied to squired | 11 years ago
0 likes
squired wrote:

Blame should be placed on whoever it was that was at fault, cyclist or driver.

Completely agree, I've heard that at least one incident was a result of the cyclist's actions more than anything else, in which case why should anyone else be held accountable?

For the record, you will never convince me to ride up the inside of a large vehicle - stationary or otherwise - and I will never understand why anyone would do it at a roundabout or junction - just stupid, pointless and not worth it.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to squired | 11 years ago
0 likes
squired wrote:

To be fair to Boris, it may well be that he has had access to more detail about each incident and how exactly it happened.

I see little evidence that Boris really 'does' detail! So I'm a mite skeptical.

Avatar
congokid | 11 years ago
0 likes

It's clear that the first instinct of anyone in a position to do something to improve the situation is to blame the victim.

In fact, victim-blaming has become so societally ingrained that many of us - including self-professed 'cyclists' on these very forums - don't even appear to realise we're doing it.

Town and city planners have brutalised our conurbations with massive infrastructure designed solely for motor traffic, so it's perhaps not really surprising that we in turn become brutalised.

That this is so is evident in the general attitude of motorists, who believe their needs supersede those of more vulnerable road users, and the knee-jerk victim-blaming response of Boris and his cronies in the coalition.

We need change now. And it needs to come from the top. They need to man up, stop being so craven in their denials of responsibility for this state of affairs and start pushing for change. They bleat on about not being a 'nanny state', but you can be absolutely certain they'd introduce and enforce a mandatory helmet law if they thought they could get away with it.

Avatar
congokid | 11 years ago
0 likes

More victim blaming crap from Boris. What a pillock.

We should have expected this when he last foisted the blame for motor vehicle/bike collisions on cyclists, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

And the implication of his statement today is that nothing's going to change for vulnerable road users any time soon.

Pages

Latest Comments