How much is Khan pocketing from his cozy relationship with Deliveroo?

Johnson may be gone, but we was a symptom of the malaise of the country rather than an outlier. Law breaking, letting powerful entities mistreat workers, ignorance, corruption and impunity are endemic.

Take the use of electric bikes by Deliveroo riders. We have all witnessed their riders on bicycle with illegal motors, either propelling the bike at speed much higher than the 25 kph limit, or functioning with no pedal stroke, or both. These bikes are not only illegal, but also a danger to the riders, to pedestrians and other cyclists.

We first reported a number of riders to Deliveroo, but they didn’t care. We tried to escalate the complaint higher up, and we were told the typical bullshit “the welfare of our riders is of outmost concern”. But what are they actually doing to ensure that their riders use legal bikes? No response.

My name is Gary and I work in the Serious Complaints team at Deliveroo.

We appreciate you bringing this issue to our attention and I am very sorry that you had this experience.

Safety for everyone is our highest priority. As with all road users, we expect all our riders including cyclists, to obey the highway code at all times.

I have shared this information with our Rider Operations team to review and follow up with the riders in the area directly, as in line with our internal policy.

We then contacted the local police. We received the typical ignorant response: “e-bikes are not illegal to be ridden on the roads therefore there is no action to take against this.”. We had to explain these people the law of the country (which admittedly was imported from the EU; but is that an excuse for such flagrant ignorance?).

One of the many @Deliveroo riders on an illegal bike.

Why isn't @metpoliceuk charging the company?

Is it because there is bribery involved or typical English incompetence?

@Heidi_LDN @CarolineRussell pic.twitter.com/ifjngkKzBb

— Vision Zero London (@V0LDN) May 22, 2021

We escalated to the top Metropolitan Police officer in charge of Vision Zero, Daniel Card. He was non committal:

“we have considered taking action and do so where there are offences apparent.”

So we issued a FOIA request to the Metropolitan Police, inquiring what specific actions have been taken against the company?

The response seemed to have been written by the Deliveroo legal team:

In other words, Deliveroo is making a mockery of the law and the Police is happy allowing them to do it.

This is very English: let the powerful do what they want and fuck the country, let’s concentrate on persecuting the poor, especially if they come from ethnic backgrounds.

Dangerous to themselves and to others. Photo via Reuters

We then asked our representative at the London General Assembly to ask the Mayor if he was happy with this exploitation of gig workers. Maybe the fact that these workers have a similar status to that of his father at a young age, would move him to act. But in England, class trumps ethnicity, and the former lawyer doesn’t seem to care about gig workers (or bus drivers, as he has shown during the first year of the pandemic)

The office of Caroline Russell was quite slow in getting an answer and seemed uninterested in pursuing this issue.

This is the response we received ten months after having asked.

I am afraid it is very difficult to get the police to change their policy on something like this, and they are right that under the law riders are self-employed and Deliveroo does not provide the bikes and it is down to the individual rider to ensure that their bike is compliant with the law.

The Mayor has said previously that he met with the founder and CEO of Deliveroo in December 2020 to discuss a range of issues, including rider conditions and wellbeing and that he calls on all digital platform operators across sectors to recognise the right of workers to organise and bargain collectively for better working conditions.  so hopefully there can be improvements.

Let’s see again what the Mayor stated in July last year

I met with the founder and CEO of Deliveroo in December to discuss a range of issues, including rider conditions and wellbeing. …

Genuine two-way flexibility where both boss and worker have a say in working patterns is a good thing. But when abused by unscrupulous businesses, it creates a race to the bottom in low pay, insecurity and bad practice.

In my second term, I will work with Londoners, businesses, unions, and other stakeholders to develop a charter for the on-demand economy, to help promote the highest standards and shine a light on bad practices.

To be fair the Mayor, he has created the Good Work Standard but it is again the typical bullshit PR exercise, where companies sign up to get a badge, but nothing is done against rogue operators who “create a race to the bottom of bad practices”.

Fortunately the race to the bottom is not presently happening; some of the Deliveroo’s competitors provide good legal ebikes to their riders.

Why then does the Mayor let Deliveroo act like Qatari builders? Is it because the company gave him some cheap shares at the IPO?

And dear reader, if you are so lazy that you cannot walk or ride your bike to your favourite restaurant, at least delete the Deliveroo app.

Key considerations when responding to the Consultation on establishing a Road Collision Investigation Branch

Following the encouraging results from research by the RAC Foundation, the Government is seeking views about whether to establish a Road Collision Investigation Branch and what are the best ways to set it up.

We have written before how the present system is broken and we welcome the intention to set up an independent investigative body with adequate powers.

We therefore urge everyone to respond to the Consultation; deadline is Thursday 9th December.

These are some of the issues to keep in mind when responding:

1. Given the special nature of the Roads environment, compared to other Transport sectors (large number of types of vehicles, majority of drivers are not professional, large number of serious collisions, sadly), the Government is suggesting the RCIB would conduct thematic investigations.
   • This raises two related issues
     1. How are the themes selected: top down (selection of themes according to some criteria – see point 2) or bottom up (i.e. starting from particular incidents). We suggest that both approaches are valuable and should be adopted
     2. What criteria should the RAIB use to select themes: The Government has suggested the following
        1. Scale – factors impacting a large number of fatal or serious collisions (as opposed to more minor collisions/near misses)
        2. Risk of harm – collisions impacting those who might sustain the greatest risk of harm including children, the elderly, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians
        3. Emerging risks – new technology or behaviour without an established evidence base
           • We strongly suggest that Risk of harm should be the most important criteria
2. Near Misses. The Rail Investigator has publicly emphasised how near misses are very important data points in developing recommendations. Rail Operators have a duty to report Near Misses. How are Near Misses on Roads going to be recorded. Presently there is no system set up to do that and the only mention in the consultation document is not encouraging. We therefore recommend you mention this in your response
3. Vision Zero is not mentioned. We believe that it is a mistake because the Vision Zero core principles (design urban environments that take into consideration the fallibility and fragility of humans; learning from failures, etc.) are important guiding principles for anyone whose remit is to reduce the number of preventable deaths.
4. Robot Cars We need to be alert to the possibility that the car manufacturers lobby may try to influence legislation to make the introduction of robot cars easier. Their nightmare scenario is cities where robot cars come to a standstill because pedestrians will just step in front of them.
   • Please mention that the freedom of Active Travel should not be curtailed to enable the speedy introduction of Robot Cars
5. Whistleblowers and Alerts by the Public. Again, the Rail Investigator has set up a robust system that allows whistleblowers in the industry to report unsafe practices. This is an important feature that is not mentioned in the consultation document. Please mention it

To summarise, the establishment of a RCIB is a needed step towards reducing road deaths. It is critcal however that it is set up with the correct overriding criteria: Active travel is at the top of the citizens needs pyramid and road danger reduction needs to be targeted towards interventions that enable Active Travel to flourish

London needs an Independent Road Crash Investigations Board

The present system of road crash investigation is broken, because it is parceled out among different agents who have no incentive to reduce road deaths.

We are calling for the future Mayor to set up an Independent Board, similar to those in charge of investigation in the Air, Rail and Maritime System, with the goal of being a central pillar of the Vision Zero Strategy.

The present system is broken

What happens after a crash which results in a fatality or serious injury

The Police conducts a Criminal Investigation, to determine whether the crash was the consequence of unlawful, careless or dangerous driving. If they deem there are not sufficient evidence to charge someone, they will close the investigation and the file will be passed to the Coroner’s Office. From that moment on, the Police main preoccupation will be to justify their decision not to prosecute; the incentive is to blame the victim, who is often no longer there.

At the same time as the Criminal Investigation, a Traffic Management Officer, from a different branch of the Police, will investigate the scene of the crash to evaluate whether the road layout, or other external elements were contributory factors. The goal of the investigation is to prevent future occurences. In our experience the quality of these investigations can vary considerably. The reports are forwarded to the Coroner, who may or may not disclose them at the hearing; in any case they are not published.

The Coroner, who is not an expert in road safety, being presented the results of the two investigations may decide that the status quo is dangerous and may issue a Prevention of Future Deaths report. That is essentially a request to the relevant Transport Authority to look at the issue and propose remedial action. The Transport Authority has 60 days to respond. Both the request and the response are published here

Once the Transport Authority has responded, the system breaks down. Nobody checks the answers and nobody checks whether the Transport Authority actually carries out the work.

What is Transport for London doing

Investigation of failures is a key pillar of Vision Zero; however Transport for London doesn’t seem to feel that fixing the broken system requires urgency.

In 2018 the Department for Transport gave £500,000 to the Royal Automobile Club to carry out a four year study on the cost-benefit analysis of setting up a Road Crash Investigating Board. It sounds the typical English exercise of kicking the can forward, in order to do nothing.

TfL has asked to do a pilot study within this RAC project.

We have conducted various investigations highlighting dangerous roads, junctions, signals, etc… Transport for London and Local Boroughs have been very slow in adopting changes that would prevent avoidable deaths.

What London needs

London has a very different KSI profile from the rest of the country. Close to 70% of fatalities and serious injuries are experienced by citizens while walking or cycling, a much higher percentage than the rest of the country.

We are asking the future Mayor of London to set up a pilot Investigations Board, in one area of London, as soon as feasible. As well as providing valuable safety lessons, the pilot will also enable the Mayor to structure the Investigations Board so that it suits the characteristics of London.

The Independent Road Crash Investigations Board will be an essential pillar of the Vision Zero Strategy.

Appendix – Advice from Simon French, Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents

This presentation succintly lists all the benefits from having an Independent Investigator, as well as some advice on how best to adapt the lessons from Rail to Road

• Insights
  • The site phase is the tip of the iceberg – the issues that lie beneath take much more time.
  • In pure safety terms, you can learn as much from smaller incidents and near misses as a major one – harder to get people to take remedial action though!
  • Many of the accidents investigated by the RAIB were not predicted as credible by any formal techniques applied by designers, maintainers or operators.
  • Most investigations reveal how combinations of factors combined to create a dangerous event – including human factors.
  • Investigations highlight the vulnerability of existing risk mitigation measures and assist the design of new measures.
  • Investigations provide valuable intelligence to those with the responsibility for safety.
  • Investigations demonstrate to those affected and wider society that action is being taken and lessons will be learnt.
• Characteristics of investigations
  • Independence from industry, also prosecution and law enforcement bodies
  • The purpose of any investigation is limited to the improvement of safety – no blame is attributed, issues of liability are never considered
  • Investigations are undertaken by specialists (with inputs from industry and external experts)
  • Industry is obliged to notify certain types of accidents and incidents to the relevant AIB, and to provide certain types of safety data
  • AIBs have powers of entry and the right to seize evidence
  • AIBs have the right to carry out interviews of those who may be able to provide evidence – those interviewed must answer questions put to them (it is an offence to refuse to answer a question or to mislead an AIB inspector)
  • Witnesses are protected from ‘self-incrimination’ – statements made to AIBs are not shared with other agencies (except by order of a high court)
  • Collaboration, and consultation, with industry and external experts
  • Those involved in accidents are kept informed of progress and key issues
  • Although AIBs play no part in the prosecution process, they will share most technical evidence with others that have a duty to investigate (unless this is legally prohibited)
  • If requested by a coroner AIBs will give evidence at an inquest
  • The outcome of all AIB investigations are published in the form of a report
  • Where appropriate AIBs will make recommendations to improve safety by:
    • reducing the likelihood of a recurrence;
    • reducing the severity of an accident should it occur;
    • improving the emergency response; or
    • addressing any other safety issues
• Lessons for Road Crashes
  • Top-level principles of independent, no blame and specialist investigation are applicable to any mode.
  • This approach can be applied to the analysis of individual accidents or larger data sets drawn from numerous investigations.
  • A supporting safety system across the industry is needed – to turn learning and recommendations into action (eg RAIB/ORR/RSSB).
  • Challenges
    • Infrastructure and regulation
      • Many infrastructure owners, manufacturers, maintainers, and regulators.
      • Numerous different parties (eg private motorists, highways authorities, commercial organisations).
      • Many rules – that are not necessarily easy to change eg TSRGD, DMRB, Highway code.
      • The sheer number of road accidents = massive data sets.
    • People and vehicles
      • Diverse users of the highway – including vulnerable users – cyclists and pedestrians.
      • Many amateur drivers – with no CPD or ongoing assessment.
      • Newer and faster-changing “rolling stock” and rapid changes in technology.
      • Culture: many road accident investigations (but not all) address questions of blame and liability.
  • Base assumptions:
    • Proportionality
    • Sampling those cases where the potential for safety learning is highest.
    • To be of value, investigations must be:
      • Independent.
      • Supported by suitable legal powers
      • Conducted by specialists/trained investigators.
      • No blame.

According to TfL, Diana is not even a number

Transport for London is massaging figures in a deliberate attempt to deceive citizens. And it starts from the top:

• LastNotLost has looked at at Khan’s claim that he has completed 100km of QuietWays. Besides the fact that most of the work involved painting Qs on existing London Cycle Network routes, LastNotLost has discovered that many claimed completed routes in South West London are not completed and some are not even started. He charitably writes: “Most of the quietway works are carried out by local boroughs, using money from TfL.  I suspect TfL has got its records muddled in the cycle of quietway works planned – designed – constructed – signposted – complete, possibly confusing the release of funds to do final works with works then being complete.“
• TfL’ press office gave the Evening Standard’s Ross Lydall wrong figures of pedestrian fatalities caused by TfL regulated buses (five instead of the actual seven), as Tom Kearney reported
• In the H,S&E Quarterly Report for April-June 2018, TfL states that four cyclists were killed in the period. The actual figure is five, as listed on our public spreadsheet 
• The fatalities figures released by TfL NINE Months after the calendar year are always below the actual number, because TfL excludes victims who died in hospital more than 30 days after the crash, and people who were killed on roads that for some arcane planning reasons are deemed private (but are not). For example, according to TfL, Diana Barimore is not a road traffic victim, because she died 33 days after being knocked down in Fulham.
  

  According to TfL, Diana is not even a number.

 

It seems that Sadiq Khan wants to reach #VisionZeroLDN by lying about the numbers.

 

Sadiq, just as Boris, keeps prioritising ” smoothing traffic flow”

Sadiq Khan, two months before being elected Mayor:

“I know that many local people feel that King’s Cross traffic gyratory system desperately needs redesigning, with concerns around safety for all road users and pollution in the densely populated area.

Transport for London (TfL) has been consulting on a redesign since 2011 and that they intend to consult on a high level proposal shortly and on final details in 2017.  I understands there are frustrations around delays with the process and I will contact TfL to seek reassurances around the timetable and that local people are being properly consulted.”

As Daniel Zylbersztajn reports, The Wait continues for Changes to the Kings Cross Gyratory:

“After a consultation in 2015 by TfL, the third in 20 years, TfL suggested dramatic changes in 2016. It involved changing streets adding cycle lanes, adding crossings.

Of 1.042 respondents,

• 81 % supported additional pedestrian crossings at various junctions
• improvement to pedestrian experience and cycling rated as highest priorities
• 70 % supported overall proposals
• 63% supported some two-way streets and changing single lane streets
• 63% supported the reduction of traffic an improvement of the environment
• 67% supported new cycling facilities including counterflow lanes for bicycles”

Yet as 2018 draws to a close, nothing is being done. Nigel Hardy, TfL’s Head of Programme Sponsorship admits that TfL is more concerned about traffic flows than safety and pollution; he states:

“The gyratory system runs through one of London’s busiest areas and construction work for our planned transformation needs careful coordination with a number of other significant schemes, including HS2. Work on the gyratory at Judd Street started this week and work at Midland Road is set to begin over the coming months, with further consultation and construction at other sections of the gyratory in 2019.”

Please note that Judd Street/Midland Road have nothing to do with the Gyratory.

Daniel cites another example of TfL prioritising the convenience of people poisoning us over our safety:

“ I had found through day-to-day observation over three years now (it is on my daughter’s way to school, which I frequent five days a week) that 90 per cent of Southbound pedestrians, amongst them many school children, did not use the push bottom operated crossing near Weston Rise at all, in spite of it being there. In other words, the local public condemned the crossing as totally not fit for its needs.“

Pentonville Road (looking East) – Weston Rise. Far left see bus stop. In front pedestrian traffic light, that must be operated individually to cross each side. Weston Rise on the right. In order to to reach the bus stop one must walk down 40 meters. wait for green to cross West Bound Lane, and then the same for East-bound lane, and then walk back 60-70 meter

However nearby there is a pedestrian crossing with much shorter red phases; why?

“A crossing 250 meter up at Rodney Street – Pentonville Road – Penton Rise allows crossing in one go, and the traffic light is phased in a faster cycle after being triggered. The reason? It is cars that are waiting in Rodney Street, not pedestrians. Cars there trigger a movement sensitive traffic light and the wait is relatively short.”

One cannot help thinking that all these delays are the consequence of Sadiq’s fear that traffic jams may imperil his reappointment as Mayor.
Problem is the list of broken promises is so long that most Londoners are fed up with the BS.

The trolley problem is a big con

In 2016 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology launched a global online survey to test whether there are cultural differences in response to the trolley problem, applied to robot cars.

Packaged as The Moral Machine, it asked players to instruct robot cars to “choose the lesser of two evils, such as killing two passengers or five pedestrians”.

This type of exercise is a pernicious con orchestrated for the benefit of the car manufacturers. Here is why.

The trolley problem hardly ever comes up in real life

If one looks at real life situations, where car drivers kill or injure pedestrians or cyclists, it is extremely rare that the driver was “choosing the lesser evil”, i.e. was trying to save another life. The trolley problem is non-problem, a masturbation for so-called theoretical ethics professors.

The trolley problem is an attempt to frame the ethical issues involved with robot cars for the benefit of the machines

By focusing on the trolley problem, i.e.a non-problem, the industry is perversely trying to shape public opinion towards its objectives.

It promotes the fallacy that robot cars will kill only to save lives

Robot cars are promoted as being much safer than human operators, capable of erasing the million+ yearly butchery on our roads. It is trying to sell the idea that robot cars will kill only when forced into an impossible dilemma. The truth is that robot cars have and will continue to kill for very different reasons, namely

• the inadequacy of the software to deal with anything more sophisticated than the cultural desert of a North American suburb.
• the vulnerability of robot cars to hacking attacks
• the willing interference by operators of safety systems to improve performance, as when evil Uber switched off one of the braking systems in a car that killed a pedestrian.

It does not focus on the real issue: why would the robot car be in such a position to be faced with the trolley problem

The key moral Vision Zero question is “what measures do we need to take to ensure that robot cars do not kill innocent citizens?” In other words we need to treat robot cars as fallible machines, and we need to create environments where they are very unlikely to kill or seriously injure. this means adopting similar measures that Vision Zero mandates for human-driven machines:

• minimise their presence in busy urban areas
• limit their speed, to reduce the impact of crashes (much easier to enforce with robot cars)
• devote road space to bicycle-only travel

You can understand how car manufacturers can be against the Vision Zero agenda, which necessarily limits the freedom to drive as and where one pleases.

It is a pre-emptive fight to disable citizens from being able to reduce the mobility of robot cars

Car manufacturers are terrified by the idea that if safety guidelines are too strict, and robot cars are regulated in such a way to prevent all avoidable crashes, the cars would not be able to move because anyone can step off the pavement and block the progress of a robot car. A Vision Zero robot car would not be able to move. The car manufacturers are always lobbying to prevent any interference with the privileged position of drivers and are already trying to make sure that such a scenario will not be contemplated by regulators.

It is a victim blaming exercise

By framing the issue as a trolley problem, they are shifting the blame from the cars to the pedestrians. Note how the MIT survey tries to show the cultural differences to whether a robot car should kill someone crossing the street not at a designated crossing site, (Global preferences for who to save in self-driving car crashes revealed). It perpetuates the immoral proposition, so dear to the British (un)Justice System, that drivers are allowed to act as vigilantes, absolved of blame if they kill a pedestrian who has broken the rules, rules of course that have been designed prioritising the convenience of drivers over the safety of ordinary citizens.

We are not against the idea of robot cars

A technology that has the potential of reducing the consequences of human error is to be welcomed. However, we have to be very careful that the car industry is hi-jacking what can be a life-saving technology, with the goal of entrenching the privileges of its customers. The safest car is a car off the road. The reduction of the number and the speed of vehicles on our roads is a much more effective way to eliminate avoidable road deaths. That should the primary goal of urban planners. Opposed to this vision of cities designed for the benefit of ordinary citizens, robot cars are being sold as the solution of future mobility: that is snake oil and the trolley problem is a pernicious way to frame the public discourse for the benefit of car manufacturers.

The proper response to people pushing the trolley problem is “Wank off”.

Finally, here is an anecdote that shows the total lack of ethics of many involved in pushing robot cars:

 

City of London to adopt Vision Zero

The City of London’s draft Transport Strategy is an ambitious plan which puts walking and cycling at its core. Integral to the strategy is the adoption of Vision Zero concepts:

We will deliver Vision Zero to eliminate death and serious injuries on the City’s streets by 2040.
Measures to deliver Vision Zero and reduce road danger will be delivered across four themes:
• Safer streets
• Safer speeds
• Safer vehicles
• Safer behaviours
This means:
• Being proportional in our efforts to tackle the sources of road danger, focussing on those users of our streets who have the greatest potential to harm others due to the size and speed of their vehicle
• Recognising that people will always make mistakes and that collisions can never be
entirely eliminated. Our streets must therefore be designed, managed and used to cater for an element of human error and unpredictability
• Reducing vehicle speeds on our streets to minimise the energy involved in collisions and protect people from death or injury
• Seeking to reduce slight injuries and fear of road danger alongside the principal focus on eliminating death and serious injuries

Here are some details.

• Safer streets – Seven dangerous streets/junctions (including St Paul gyratory, High Holborn and Aldersgate) will be redesigned by 2030.  They will also be narrowing and raising the entrances to side streets to require drivers and riders to manoeuvre more slowly
• Safer speeds – Adoption of a City-wide 25kph speed limit by 2022
• Safer vehicles – Improving the FORS standards and widening the scheme to coaches and vans
• Safer behaviours – Among various measures, “Encouraging TfL to require safety training as part of private hire and taxi licensing. This will include Bikeability Level 3 training”

In order to ensure that the Strategy translates in real action, the City proposes a Road Danger Reduction Action Plan, “a five-year delivery plan for measures to achieve Vision Zero and implement the Safe Systems approach”.

Overall the Strategy shows ambition. It also acknowledges that there is a lot of work to do:

Only 4% of people currently consider the experience of cycling in the City to be pleasant (and 56% consider it to be unpleasant). We want this figure to be 75% by 2044. More than half of people cycling in the City scored their feeling of safety while cycling as a 1 or 2 out of 5.

On average 19 people cycling have been killed or seriously injured on our streets every year for the last 5 years

Pedestrian deaths and injuries per billion journeys by foot

Rachel Aldred has divided the casualty data by the average distance people walk and the results are quite startling:

Someone walking in Barking runs more than twice the risk of being seriously injured or killed than if she were walking in Kingston.

Both boroughs have low walking shares, so is the difference linked to income levels?

Dr. Aldred will conduct more research.

Meanwhile, here is a couple of possible explanation:

• Kingston’s affluent residents demand money to be spent on a beautiful public realm; that often means better and safer infrastructure for pedestrians; Kingston was also recipient of Mini Holland money, and safe cycling infrastructure also improves the safety of pedestrians. On the other hand Barking, where Ford used to have a large factory, is still married to “car culture” and its authority is not devoting sufficient attention to pedestrian safety.
• However, there may be another factor that may influence the income/danger correlation: culture. In poor neighbourhoods, a car is still perceived as a status sign; car owners are more likely to act disrespectfully towards non-owners. Additionally, poor neighbourhoods have a larger percentage of immigrants from countries (such as India, Arab and African countries) where this disrespect is endemic. In more affluent neighbourhoods, people don’t need to prove their status by driving aggressively.

Boroughs alarmed by Met’s collision data

One of the key principles of Vision Zero is learning from failure. In order to draw valuable conclusions and reduce the number of avoidable deaths, it is essential to have good timely granular data and have the willingness to analyse it.

In November 2016, the Metropolitan Police introduced a new input database for collision data. It seems that they did not ask themselves “What is this data for? What social good can we or others extract from it?” They certainly did not have any leadership from Transport for London, which, in spite of Khan’s stated intention of “leading the most transparent, engaged and accessible administration London has ever seen” see collision data as a dangerous weapon if it falls in public hands. In spite of continuous requests for the past four years, TfL refuses to publish a real-time database of KSIs of vulnerable road users on London streets. If we can do it, why can’t the organisation tasked to oversee the safety of citizens on London streets do it?

The consequences of the introduction of the new database have been pretty bad:

1. For the past two years, the Metropolitan Police has been unable to meet the June deadline for reporting the previous year’s collision data, thus delaying by several months the release of national statistics
2. London Borough engineers have noticed a reduction in data and data quality in respect to collision information sent to them via Transport for London.

 

TransportXtra reports:

“It seems that previously the Met had a designated team who would process collision data but it has now been disbanded and police officers are recording their own collision records electronically via COPA, the Case Overview and Preparation Application.”

Frost says boroughs are now receiving records “with no description of how the collision occurred”.

“This makes it near-on impossible to identify patterns in the collision data or within clusters of collisions. Poor data quality is impacting on the level of analysis boroughs can undertake, making it harder to prioritise and plan our programmes, or to design effective remedial measures.

“Also, because the data is very delayed it is affecting reporting of annual and quarterly targets in a timely manner.”

Frost says injury severity reporting has also changed. “The criteria for severity categorisation has been altered in such a way that more collisions than in previous years are now being classed as a serious injury where before they would have been recorded as slight injury. This means, going forward, producing meaningful data comparisons with previous years and the tracking of year-on-year trends will be extremely difficult.”

 

Vision Zero or Zero Vision?

 

Playing politics with people’s lives and deaths – part 1

The junction between Goswell Road and Lever Street is not particularly dangerous for people walking or cycling. It has traffic lights, it has speed humps on the Lever Road side. The map below shows Cycling KSIs for the past 15 years in South Islington. The junction is in the middle of the map, with no incidents.

Soren Aarlev was killed there at 00:20 while riding home. We don’t know the circumstances and Vision Zero principles require to study well the dynamics of the crash to examine whether the design of the junction can be improved. We do know that there are two interventions in the area which will greatly improve the safety of the majority of people cycling in a East West direction:

• reduce the volume of motor traffic who use Skinner-Percival-Lever Streets as a rat run between Farringdon Road and Old Street, by making them one-way, in opposite directions
• transform the advisory cycle lane on Percival Street to mandatory, thus preventing people from parking there in the evening and on week-ends

Shortly after the death of Soren, Councillor Claudia Webbe did not miss the opportunity of covering herself with excrement:

Transport chief Councillor Claudia Webbe said: “I am writing to the Mayor of London to urgently request funding that will allow us to look at options for how best to improve this junction, making it safer for all road users – particularly more vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists and motor­cyclists.”

She expressed her con­dolences to the cyclist’s family and added: “Tackling dangerous junctions and rebalancing roads in favour of pedestrians and cyclists is one of my top priorities.”

This is truly an outrageous statement from a despicable woman who has done NOTHING for the safety of citizens walking and cycling, while at the head of Transport & Environment.

We have documented how Islington Council has received a grant of £2,000,000 from Transport for London, half of it earmarked for improving the safety of the thousands of people cycling on Old Street and Clerkenwell Road, which is the long strings of serious incidents at the bottom of the map. The Council, while Webbe was directly responsible for spending the money, has not done anything at all, except spending hundreds of thousands pounds in consultants fees.

The two interventions we propose above are anathema to the Council which has a long history of opposing plugging rat runs and removing car parking privileges in order to improve cycling safety. Therefore it is unlikely that any money from TfL will be spent to tackle issues that prevent people from cycling in safety.

In other words, Webbe has been given £millions to improve the safety of people cycling in Islington, she has decided not to do anything concrete with the money, and then when someone is killed at a safe junction, without knowing any details of the crash, she uses the death of the poor victim to score political points.

That is the depravity of the woman.

Image: Camden New Journal