Sent to the mayor and the main mayoral candidates

Dear Mr. Livingstone,

I am writing to you on behalf of the London Bicycle Messenger Association, the representative body of London's working cyclists. As you may know, on the morning of 23rd February 2004, London bicycle messenger and LBMA member Sebastian Lukomski died in a collision with a heavy goods vehicle (HGV). Sebastian's death occurred on Upper Thames Street EC4 at the junction with Queen Street Place EC4, whilst he was carrying out his legitimate business.

He is the seventh London bicycle messenger known to have died whilst working, in a collision with a HGV, and the third known to have died where the collision was the result of a left turn by the HGV. The overwhelming majority of fatal injuries to cyclists in London are the result of such collisions, and the majority of these occur because of a left turn by the HGV.

The LBMA is aware of Transport for London's safety awareness campaign, which attempts to address this problem by the notional distribution of leaflets to both cyclists and HGV drivers. However, we feel that it is time for a radical solution to the problem of fatalities linked to HGVs. We ask you today to ban HGVs from the Congestion Charge zone during Congestion Charge hours. We propose that you exempt only HGVs that have additional rear view cameras and mirrors fitted to remove the blind spot. Often the explanation given by HGV drivers after fatal collisions of this type is "I never saw her/him ". Only with the adequate provision of safety equipment and proper training in its use can such fatalities be avoided in future.

The LBMA believes that these measures will significantly reduce the risk of death and serious injury to our members and all other London cyclists. Thank you for your early attention to this matter,

yours sincerely

Bill Chidley, Chair

After over a month with no response we decided to approach this matter through the London Assembly.

Question to the London Assembly 28.4.04

Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London SE1 2AA

Subject: Questions to the Mayor

Report Number: 6

Question # 629 / 2004 - Safety of bicycle messengers - Noel Lynch

On 23 February 2004, London bicycle messenger Sebastian Lukomski was killed by a collision with a Heavy Goods Vehicle at the junction of Lower Thames Street and Queen Street Place. He is the 7th London bicycle messenger to have died whilst working. All 7 have been killed by collisions with HGVs. The majority of cyclists killed or seriously injured in Central London are involved in collisions with HGVs. On 19 March the London Bicycle Messenger Association (LBMA), the representative body of London’s bicycle messengers, wrote to the Mayor to ask him to consider various measures, including restricting HGV movements in the Congestion Charge Zone, in an effort to improve safety of London’s bicycle messengers and other cyclists. As of 16 April, no acknowledgement had been received. Can the Mayor acknowledge receipt of the letter and give an indication of when a formal response can be expected?

I was sorry to hear of the tragic accident involving Mr Lukomski. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to the LBMA. I can confirm that I have received the letter and a formal response was sent out to Mr Chidley at the LBMA on 26 April. I have sent a copy of this letter to you.

I share the LBMA's concerns and have asked TfL to look into ways in which we can require Heavy Goods Vehicles to fit equipment that removes the blind spot.

TfL are undertaking a campaign to warn both HGV drivers and cyclists of the dangers. They are currently negotiating with a major supermarket chain and finalising a design which they hope to place on the back of the 300 plus lorries that are used for deliveries in the London area. TfL are confident that once this initiative starts they will get other HGV operators to join.

Dear LBMA,

Thank you for your letter of 19 March 2004. We are very sorry to hear of the death of one your members in Upper Thames Street and offer our sympathies. We are very aware of the dangers particularly from turning HGVs. The casualty statistics show this group to be of high risk and are in our minds with regards to preventative measures. London Accident Analysis Unit Factsheet 2001-5 (enclosed) gives an analysis of pedal cyclist casualties killed or seriously injured, and covers data up to 1999. Since then, there have been the following pedal cycle fatalities:

• 2000 24
• 2001 21
• 2002 20
• 2003 19

4 year total 74

Out of the 74 fatalities, 29 (39%) involved a collision with a HGV (over 7.5 tonnes). Of these 29, 15 (52%) involved the HGV vehicle turning left across the path of the cyclist, and a further five (17%) involved the pedal cyclist and the HGV riding alongside or overtaking; the remaining nine involved other types of conflict.

Our main activities are for education and information campaigns warning both drivers and cyclists of the dangers. We are currently negotiating with a major supermarket chain and finalizing a design which we hope we will be able to place on the back the [sic] 300 plus lorries that are used for deliveries in the London area. We are confident that once this initiative starts we will get other HGV operators to join. Placing suitable materials on the back of HGVs we hope will improve this tragic situation.

Given the support to cycling in the Mayor's transport Strategy it is obviously at the forefront of all our minds to make sure people can cycle in safety. Let us hope that our joint efforts can towards this.

Yours sincerely,
Chris Lines
Head of London Road Safety Unit, Transport for London

LBMA commentary: I think this reply is most important because it states current Transport for London policy. Note that their answer is to stick signs on the back of lorries saying 'don't go up the inside'. Two things wrong with this, in the view of the LBMA. One, the LBMA had already devoted considerable efforts to raising awareness of the 6 London bicycle messengers killed by HGVs, having twice painted the roads with their names and also publicised their cases in the programme distributed free at 2003 ECMC, which Sebastian would have received, BEFORE Sebastian was killed. Two, there is no mention of extra training, education or equipment for the HGV drivers.

The LBMA accepts that cyclists have a duty to preserve their own lives. However, we feel that HGV operators also have a duty of care to make sure that their drivers are made aware of the fatal danger that their vehicles threaten cyclists with; that they are also made aware of the frequency with which HGVs kill cyclists in London; and that they are given all possible equipment and training to avoid these fatal accidents in the future. Until such time as the HGV operators take these measures, the LBMA does not feel that they have earned the right to share the road with our members.

Dear LBMA,

I am very sorry to hear about Sebastian Lukomski's death. It is always a tragedy when someone dies on our roads, so unnecessarily. As I am sure you will appreciate, the London Green Party is very keen to support cycling and walking and look to encourage any scheme that contributes to fewer people using private transport.

The London Green Party Manifesto commits us to:

• - introducing a 20 mph speed limit throughout London
• - motor traffic to be reduced by 25% by 2012
• - most large gyratory systems to be changed back to two way traffic
• - action to get freight off roads and onto rail and more local freight onto bikes
• - maintaining night time lorry restrictions
• - London Cycle Network completed
• - Creating many contraflow in one way 20 mph road
• - 10% of all journeys by cycle by 2008

This past year Jenny Jones has been the Green Party Deputy Mayor and in that capacity she has created and fulfilled the role of Road Safety Ambassador where she has been able to develop and gain funding for a number of road safety policies. Your request to ban lorries during Congestion Charge hours appears to be a useful, radical solution and in principle I am very happy to support it. If I were elected Mayor for London I would be keen to discuss this further with the LBMA.

Yours sincerely
Councillor Darren Johnson AM, Mayoral Candidate, Green Party

22.03.04

Dear LBMA,

Thank you very much for your letter. I was unaware of the tragic death of Sebastian Lukomski, and offer my condolences. Sadly, as you mention, HGVs have caused numerous fatalities to cyclists. Your suggestions for improving this situation are extremely helpful, and I will certainly consider them carefully in drawing up my manifesto. You may know that I have announced that I want to consult on the idea of banning lorries from entering central London in peak hours. I believe this will contribute to increased cycle safety. However, we also need to develop a rigorous city-wide policy to enhance road safety for cyclists. I agree that Transport for London's awareness campaign is not sufficient to reduce the dangers to cyclists. As you probably know, I chair the Government's National Cycling Strategy Board, and I believe that we can massively increase the number of cyclists in the capital, but only if we can make their journeys safer and easier than they currently are.

I am certainly keen to use new technology to improve road safety, and as such I will consider your interesting suggestions for using cameras to remove HGV blind spots carefully. Thank you once again for your letter,

Steve Norris - Conservative Party Candidate for London Mayor

(undated)

Dear LBMA,

Thank you for your letter of 19 March 2004 raising the very alarming level of fatalities for cycle messengers in London as a result of collisions with heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). Your suggestion that HGV exemption should be conditional on the fitting of additional rear view cameras and mirrors to remove blind spots seems a very sensible one, and I should be interested in pursuing this further with both yourselves and the Freight Transport Association. The LBMA's very radical proposal to ban HGVs from the Congestion Charge Zone in central London, combined with the night-time lorry ban, would allow very little time indeed for vital deliveries. Even with my proposal to cease charging after 5pm, I can't see how this could be practicable. Moreover the central Zone is comparatively small and this move would do nothing to help the situation elsewhere in inner London (eg Kensington High Street, the Edgware Road, or Camden Town).

Yours sincerely

Simon Hughes MP - Liberal Democrat Candidate for Mayor

Our reply to all parties - 27.05.04

The following letter, a response to the reply to our initial letter calling for a HGV ban was sent to Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London. This letter was sent to all the groups mentioned above and is also being circulated to the LCC HGV campaign group.

27th May 2004

Dear Mr Livingstone,

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply our letter of 18th March. We have conveyed your condolences to Sebastian Lukomski's family.
We are pleased to hear that improving road safety and facilities for cyclists are high on your transport agenda. However, we doubt that the initiative in its current form will contribute to a reduction in the threat to cyclists from HGVs. The initiative, which amounts to putting signs on HGVs advising cyclists not to pass them on the left, could be seen as encouraging HGV drivers to believe that they do not have a duty of care for other road users. 'It's their responsibility to stay out of my way, not my responsibility to look out for them'.

The LBMA fully accepts that all road users are responsible for their own safety. However, we believe that all road users are responsible for the safety of the road users around them. This initiative does not appear to conform to this simple dictum, for the reasons given above.

In 2003, the LBMA organised two separate memorial rides, one on the occasion of the 2003 European Cycle Messenger Championships hosted by the LBMA and on 9th October, which is International Bicycle Messenger Appreciation Day, which visited the sites at which the previous six London bicycle messengers have been killed by collisions with HGVs. We are committed to remembering our fallen comrades, and trying to reduce the chance of fatal or near-fatal collisions involving HGVs and cyclists in London. We know that this type of collision is almost unknown in some Northern European cities, which shows that this type of collision is not inevitable. We therefore expect the operators to make efforts as strenuous as our own, and convince us, those who are at risk, that these efforts are more than the usual cursory attempt to convince public officials that self-regulation is sufficient.

Therefore, I believe that this initiative could only be acceptable to the LBMA if it was accompanied by substantial investments of both money and time in HGV driver education and re-equipment of the vehicles with more mirrors. Written assurances from the operators that this investment in training and equipment was actually taking place would be welcome news.

We welcome your suggestion of a meeting with GLA officers. We would be happy to attend a meeting, especially if representatives of the London Cycling Campaign, the Cycling Centre of Excellence, the London Road Safety Unit, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and representatives of HGV drivers groups were in attendance.

Yours sincerely,
Bill Chidley - Chair, London Bicycle Messenger Association

The following is a letter we sent to Mark Watts of the mayor's office:

Dear Mr Watts,

I am writing to you with respect to issues arising from the death of London bicycle messenger and LBMA member Sebastian Lukomski, who was crushed to death by a left-turning Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) on the morning of 23rd February 2004 at the junction of Queen Street Place and Upper Thames Street EC4. He was the seventh London bicycle messenger to have died as the result of a collision with an HGV. In March I wrote to the Mayor on behalf of the LBMA to reiterate our demand for urgent action by the operators of HGVs to dramatically reduce the threat that they currently pose to cyclists (nearly a half of all fatal or near-fatal injuries to London cyclists were caused by collisions with HGVs). We also proposed that operators that failed to comply be banned from the Central Congestion Charge Zone. In reply to my letter we received details of proposed measures which will be taken by a major supermarket chain in association with the London Road Safety Unit. These measures amounted to putting signs on the rear left of the vehicle advising cyclists not to pass on the left. We feel this is wholly inadequate. We accept that all road users are responsible for their own safety, we also feel that larger vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles have a duty of care towards vulnerable road users. The Mayor also suggested that we could get in touch with you to initiate further discussions.

Our current proposal is as follows:

We think it is time that HGV drivers stopped crushing london bicycle messengers and other london cyclists to death. We think that the HGV operators must be persuaded that they have a duty of care towards vulnerable road users. In accepting this, they must instruct their employees, the drivers, that their top priority when they climb into the cab of their vehicles is to make sure that they arrive at their destination without killing or maiming other road users. Cynthia Barlow, mother of a cyclist who was killed by a left turning Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) lorry which had just overtaken her, forced RMC to completely rethink the equipment, and most importantly, the training of their drivers. The RMC lorry that killed her daughter was fitted with the new design of near-side mirrors which eliminate the so-called 'blind-spot' which has been blamed for many fatal and near-fatal collisions. When asked about the proximity mirrors at his trial, the driver (who was acquitted) said that in 20 years of driving he had never had cause to use the proximity mirrors. This shows the importance of training of drivers in the correct use of the safety equipment available to them.

We therefore insist that the following items are actioned as a matter of urgency:

• 1. That TfL compels all HGV operators with regular business in the capital to reequip their vehicles with similar kit to that which RMC fitted their fleet with after pressure from Cynthia Barlow. The RMC initiative has been agreed by the London Cycling Campaign to be a bench-mark for HGV operators. TfL also compels the operators to give their drivers additional safety training every '2 months, to make sure that all their drivers understand the correct use of the equipment and its purpose, and to ensure that the driver understand the precedence of safety of vulnerable road-users within the operators priorities ie above every other consideration.
  I suggest that as the tax-payer currently meets most of the medical costs of fatal and near-fatal accidents, the HGV business has not been exposed to the full expense of the results of collisions between their vehicles and other road users. Therefore, even though these measures might be seen as imposing additional costs on a business sector in which margins are slim, these additional costs are not unwarranted and indeed could be considered a long-overdue contribution to reducing the hidden costs of road freight to the London tax-payer.
•  
• 2. TfL recommences its safety survey of HGV operators that was started in the wake of the RMC deaths (the vehicle which killed Cynthia Barlow's daughter was involved in a fatal collision with another cyclists within a month on the first accident). After a meeting at TfL in May last year, involving representatives of the Department of Transport, City Police, Met Police, cycling organisations etc chaired by Bernie Hewing. In the minutes of that meeting he put down for his own action a questionnaire survey of the largest lorry companies operating in London, asking them for information on the type of cyclist incidents they had been involved in and what actions they had taken. Bernie Hewing then left that part of TfL, so RMC agreed, in conjunction with RoSPA, to finalise the questionnaire and circulate it. This was done. None of the lorry firms responded to the questionnaire sent out by RoSPA. This more than anything suggests that the operators will only act if compelled to do so.
•  
• 3. That there are regular meetings between TfL, HGV operators and drivers groups and vulnerable road users groups to monitor progress.
•  

I look forward to your early reply

Bill Chidley, Chair LBMA

At the first Mayor's Question Time since the recent London Mayoral and Assembly elections, the following question was put by London Assembly Member Jenny Jones, formerly Green Deputy Mayor. We recieved this correspondence July 1st.

Question No: 842 / 2004

Given how many cyclists and bicycle messengers have been killed by collisions with HGVs, is it time to look at restricting their movement around London and especially within the congestion charging zone?

Mayor's repsonse:
During 2003 (and bearing in mind that Congestion charging started on 17 February 2003), in London overall there were a reported 61 collisions between HGVs and cyclists (6 fatal, 17 serious and 38 slight). Of these, within the Congestion Charging area, there were 14 collisions (1 fatal, 3 serious and 10 slight). These data are drawn from the total number of accidents involving cyclists which were 3056 (19 fatal, 421 serious and 2616 slight) in London overall and 366 (2 fatal, 45 serious and 319 slight) within the Congestion Charging zone. TfL are carefully monitoring the congestion charging scheme to understand its impact across a range of issues, with safety being a key consideration. The monitoring will help to identify whether any variations are required to mitigate any adverse effects.

However, what is important to remember is that cycle safety is a key issue that needs to be dealt with on a London-wide basis. TfL's Road Safety Unit are working with distribution companies to get the message out to both HGV drivers and cyclists that they need to be more aware of each other. Ready Mix Cements (RMC) already include signs on the backs of their vehicles warning cyclists to look out for the vehicle potentially turning left. The Road Safety Unit are also working with a major supermarket chain on broadening driver training (to highlight the need to look out for cyclists) and installing signs on the backs of vehicles to warn cyclists of the potential hazard. It is hoped that this will act as a catalyst for other retailers and distribution companies. We should not forget that most activities in London ultimately require the collection and delivery of goods and provision of services and therefore the best solution will be to create an environment where both goods vehicles and cyclists can safely share road space.

15.07.04

Subject: FTA hgv/cyclist survey

Dear Mr Dossetter,

As you may be aware, London bicycle messenger and LBMA member Sebastian Lukomski was killed by a collision with a HGV in the City of London earlier this year. He was the seventh London bicycle messenger known to have been killed whilst working. All seven were killed by collisions with HGVs.

Previous to Sebastian's tragic and avoidable death, the LBMA has already been working to heighten London bicycle messengers awareness of the risks to them from HGVs, staging two events in 2003 highlighting and commemorating the lives of the six fallen London bicycle messengers and the circumstances of their deaths.

After Sebastian's death, there was a great deal of grieving and anger. The LBMA decided that more action to prevent HGVs killing London messengers and cyclists was needed. It was decided that the operators of HGV, as the drivers employers, should be mobilised in an effort to make the number one priority of all HGV drivers to arrive at their destination without being involved in a fatal or near fatal accident.

Our campaign has so far taken the form of writing letters to the Mayor (some of the correspondence can be seen at http://www.londonmessengers.org/hgv.html).

I was therefore heartened to learn that the FTA was currently engaged in survey of operators "to identify the extent of hgv/cyclist accidents and action taken by operators to prevent them". I wonder whether you would be able to tell me what response the FTA has so far received, what date has been set for completing the survey and what resources the FTA will devote to collating and publishing the results?

I look forward to your early response.

Bill Chidley, Chair LBMA

The first meeting to discuss what the Mayor of London's office could do to reduce the threat from HGVs to London bicycle messengers and other cyclists was today (10.08.04). I had no idea that it was the birthday of Sebastian Lukomski, the latest of the 7 London bicycle messengers know to have been killed whilst working. An unhappy coincidence.

Attending the meeting were:

• Bill Chidley, Chair LBMA.
• Alistair Hanton, from LCC's HGV group.
• Cynthia Barlow, mother of cyclist killed by HGV, and road crime campaigner with Roadpeace, the National Road Victims Support Charity.
• Kevin Austin of Transport for London (TfL)
• Mark Watts, who is one of the Mayor's policy advisors and appeared to be able to speak for the Mayor.
• Chris Lines of the London Accident Analysis Unit (LAAU).
• Ian Wingrove, researcher in London Assembly Member Jenny Jones' (Mayor's Road Safety Ambassador) office.

The case for action to reduce the fatal threat from HGV to vulnerable road users was made with some force by Cynthia and myself.

The following action was agreed:

Pursuit of the operators was agreed to be the most fruitful approach. LAAU would look back at HGV/cyclist deaths in London over the last 4 years and see if, as was suggested by us, construction vehicles (skip/dumpster/tipper/concrete/spoil lorries) made up a significant proportion of the vehicles responsible for those deaths.

The LCC, having some expertise in this area, would examine what legal remedies might be available to the Mayor's office to compel the operators to train their drivers better.

The materials being assembled by the LAAU to support the Sainsbury's initiative will be reexamined by the LCC and Roadpeace to see how much benefit they would be in training the drivers.

There would be a further meeting of interested parties on or around 1 October to consider the LAAU report and consider further action.

Bill's conclusions: a first step in the right direction.

12.11.04 City Hall

Attendees:

• Kevin Austin (Chair)
• Chris Lines (TfL)
• Nina Webster (TfL)
• David Rowe (TfL)
• Charlie Lloyd (LCC)
• Alistair Hanton (LCC)
• Cynthia Barlow (RoadPeace)
• Sophie Wallis (GLA)
• Bill Chidley (LBMA)

Apologies: Mike Harper (MPS)

1. TfL review of fatal collisions
Nina reported that 44 of the 49 cases had been received, and the group had received the analysis prior to the meeting. There was some discussion of why women appeared to be disproportionately represented. Further analysis will be undertaken to try to determine the proportion of construction vehicles in London, and whether they are overrepresented. Multi-pronged approach considered most effective, involving training of drivers, contact with companies and information for cyclists. Some options discussed included writing to companies involved in fatalities to ask whether procedures had been changed as a result, writing to boroughs to determine whether road layout etc had been reviewed. TfL could also look at this. NW to tabulate lorry point of first impact and provide to group. DR to draft action plan.

2. Progress on the TRL review on sideguards
DR reported that DfT had still not received this from TRL, but are pressing for it. DR will share with group when available.

3. TfL / Sainsbury’s initiative
NW reported that design for back of lorries has been approved and around 500 will be produced. If this goes well for articulated, will look at fitting to smaller lorries as well.

4. Change of language
KA had spoken to Jenny Jones’ on this matter. Recent press material from MPS shows new language has been adopted. Letters have been drafted from Ken Livingstone to Sir John Stevens (MPS) and City of London Police, which should be sent next week. CB mentioned the Transport Committee’s Traffic Law and its Enforcement report, recently published. This highlighted the need to change language, along with improving traffic law and enforcement. CB requested that GLA family lead by example in talking of road violence, road death etc. C Lines noted that the level of road policing came out strongly from the Transport Committee’s report. KA agreed to read document and report back as to whether the GLA would lobby the Government on the issues raised.

5. Progress on LCC’s draft Code of Practice and legal advice
C Lloyd will send around the draft CoP when available. It is intended to indicate best practice and to be used by operators.

6. Corporation of London
KA reported that GLA will be meeting senior officers from the Corporation of London on 23rd November on a wide range of issues. The road safety issues raised in CB’s letter to the Corporation will be one item discussed.

7. LBMA member training
DR will be meeting MPS on whether they have capacity to offer their training to messengers. A note on the outcome will be circulated.

8. Driver training
CB reported on driver training initiatives. RoSPA are re-doing their video for drivers – improvement is needed on the last version. If possible, the group would like input on problems and messages at an early stage of production. CB will request sufficient copies for the group.

9. Next Steps
TfL/ GLA – Develop action plan LCC – circulate Code of Practice CB/ LCC – email GLA with issues they would like raised with Tony McNulty so these can be included in next meeting with Ken Livingstone (24 January).

10. AOB
CB advised that Turner Prize entrant Jeremy Deller’s work included a piece on cyclist safety which may raise interest.

Next meeting – mid January. Sarah Bradshaw to email dates.

28.01.05 City Hall

Attendees:

• Mark Watts (Chair)
• Chris Lines (TfL)
• Nina Webster (TfL)
• David Rowe (TfL)
• Charlie Lloyd (LCC)
• Alastair Hanton (LCC)
• Kevin Austin (GLA)
• Cynthia Barlow (RoadPeace)
• Alan Rickwood (City of London Police)
• Ian Brooks (MPS)
• Bill Chidley (LBMA)

1. Action Plan
David Rowe distributed the Action Plan to the Group. Comments from ALL the group to DR by 11/2. AR suggested training for commuter coach drivers could be required via the London Service Permits. DR to investigate. C Lloyd asked if cycle training could be given to the trainers of the BTEC for bus staff. DR agreed to look into this.

2. Progress on the TRL review on sideguards
DR reported that TfL have not received this and will chase DfT. A letter from the Mayor to the DfT will be written to request that sideguards should be made compulsory. DR to draft for GLA and check if there is time to include this as an amendment to the Road Safety Bill.

3. TfL / Sainsbury’s initiative
The launch is due to take place in the forthcoming month. No date has yet been set. C Lines will inform the group of the date when this has been agreed.

4. Progress on LCC’s draft Code of Practice and legal advice
A provisional draft was distributed at the meeting (copy attached). Comments from ALL the group to be sent to C Lloyd by 11/2. C Lines suggested that if the Management of Operational Road Risk could be incorporated into freight plans then many of the items included would be covered. C Lines to progress. AH to contact KA if they require details of Trade Union contacts.

5. LBMA member training
DR distributed TfLs proposal. BC was not confident of the take up from cycle messengers. IB mentioned that one way would be to work with the large corporations in London that use these services to encourage them to use accredited firms, who undertake training of their staff etc.. IB/AR will discuss further.

6. Next Steps
Action Plan to be delivered, subject to comments from the group. It was agreed that we should look to publicise what we are doing. MW/KA will take this forward.

7. AOB
CB asked if the group could consider how companies could be encouraged to adopt voice boxes that are activated when turning left. CB informed the group that a photographic exhibition on road casualties by Paul Welham Clark is currently touring the UK. She has asked whether the Guidlhall will host the exhibition if it comes to London. CB asked if there had been any work done on the differences in women’s experiences to men when cycling. C Lloyd confirmed he could provide CB with a contact in the LCC. CB asked if any work had been done to follow up companies whose drivers had been involved in a collision. AR/IB confirmed this to be the case.

Next meeting – In about 4 months – to update on delivery of action plan.

Sent to Mark Watts, GLA; CC: Kevin Austin, GLA; Chris Lines, LRSU; Alastair Hanton, LCC HGV Group; Chief Insp. Ian Brooks, Met Pol.; Cynthia Barlow, Roadpeace; Jenny Jones AM

21.02.05

Re: HGV/Cyclist Draft Action Plan

Dear Mark,

After presenting the draft action plan to the Management Committee of the LBMA, I am able to give you our formal response. Broadly speaking, the Action Plan was warmly welcomed, subject to some qualifications.

Draft Code of Conduct for HGV Operators
The LBMA is very concerned at the lack of any formal compulsion for operators to comply with this. Experience with the Despatch Association's Code of Conduct does not encourage us to think that there will be anything other than lip-service paid to any Code of Conduct, unless there are very clear mechanisms for monitoring the code. There was also some confusion expressed as to whether side-guards would be required to be retrofitted.

Proposed formal training of bicycle messengers.
The management committee accepts the need for some training of messengers with respect to the danger posed by HGVs, but has reservations about the training proposed.

The principle concern is: who meets the cost, and who gets the money from the training?
If it is the rider that meets the cost, we cannot see why the riders that need the training most, i.e. inexperienced and without any contact with the LBMA's own literature (which constantly stresses the need to be aware of the dangers of passing HGVs on the left) will take up the training, as they are unlikely to be aware of the need for it, and may not have the funds available to pay for it. If it is the companies that are expected to pay for it voluntarily, we do not expect any take-up, and worse, if they are compelled to do so, we expect that most will drop their pedal-bike fleets altogether, and use powered 2 wheelers instead. This would not be desirable from anyone's point of view, as this will result in a significant drop in pedal cycle kilometres within central London. The second concern is that whoever's money is spent, it is not clear to the LBMA whom is going to receive the funds.

Other concerns:

Is it really appropriate for bicycle messengers to be singled out of the courier business for this type of licensing/regulation? Surely bicycle messengers should only be subject to the same regulation as the rest of the vehicle types within the business and within the framework of existing road legislation? What is being proposed is regulation beyond what pedal cyclists are subject to, and beyond what other couriers are subject to.

Will the training lead to some kind of portable qualification, perhaps an NVQ?

Is fitness and nutrition training really necessary to avoid being crushed to death by an errant HGV driver?

We are also concerned that the LBMA does not appear to be represented on whatever body is devising and approving the training.

On behalf of the LBMA, I thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Chidley, Chair

Notes from Meeting between Cycling Centre of Excellence and London Bicycle Messenger Association, to discuss what LBMA would like to see instead of the proposed training.

present: Becky Upfold (CCE), Bill Chidley (LBMA)

March 11, 2005

Re: Courier Induction Course

Context and Background: LBMA stress that any package or training established for couriers cannot be too onerous that it becomes a disincentive for employers to use bicycle messengers.

The LBMA demand for an induction package comes from the 7 courier deaths, which have all been a result of HGVs. Fundamentally the aim of any induction package is therefore to educate cyclists about the dangers of HGVs, and how they can minimise these dangers.

Along with the work GLA and LBMA have been doing re: Draft Code of Conduct for HGV Operators, this education for couriers would ensure both the HGVs and couriers are more aware of one another and better prepared to share the road safely.

LMBA Proposal: 'An induction package for couriers' All courier companies to be required, as part of their code of conduct, to:
1) Carry out a check of the prospective employees bike, to ensure that it is legally road worthy. The contract of employment should not be signed until the bike has passed this check.
2) Provide all new employees with:
a) a leaflet to make the reader aware of the danger of HGVs and how to share the road with them safely; and
b) a copy of the highway code. (Useful additions to this pack would include information about first aid and cycle theft).
Similarly, the contract of employment should not be signed until this information has been provided.

To include this as part of the code of conduct, this proposal needs to firstly be endorsed by the LBMA and secondly endorsed by the Despatch Association.

Next Steps:
- CCE to review feasibility, appropriateness and costs of above proposal and feed comments back to LBMA before April 17. - CCE to consider consulting a senior road traffic police officer on the content on the bike check video they're currently working on for pool bike users, with aim that it could be a resource for all courier companies in helping them perform the proposed mandatory check of bikes.
- LBMA to get feedback on proposal at AGM 17 April
- Once CCE and LBMA have consensus on content, CCE to progress with Despatch Association.
- Aim to roll out induction package by October 11 2005, Messenger Appreciation Day