After a horrific 2019, when more than 70 citizens have been killed walking in London (compared to 58 in 2018), the first killing of 2020 highlights why Transport for London is failing in its Vision Zero effort.
It was the third killing in a 100 metre stretch on Peckham High Street, over the past three years.
In 2014, before the first killing, Peckham Town Centre was identified by Transport for London, as one of two “Pedestrian Town Centre Safety Pilots”, because of deaths and serious injuries there.
After the first killing, of Mary O’Leary in Sept 2015 TfL stated: “Peckham has been selected as one of two locations for pedestrian focused safety improvements as part of the pedestrian town centres programme. Work is now underway to identify a wide ranging set of improvements to make the area safer and more appealing for pedestrians and over the next two years [by the end of 2017] these ideas will be developed and implemented.”
After the second killing, of Peter Allingham, in September 2017, Southwark Councillor Ian Wingfield, stated: “Council officers met with TfL on Monday to discuss their long-standing proposals to improve pedestrian safety in the town centre. TfL say they will consult on these plans in May 2018, with construction beginning in 2019. We have put pressure on TfL to act faster and bring these dates forward.”
Two months ago, at the Allingham inquest, Stuart Reid, TfL’s Vision Zero boss said: “We continue to work on a scheme to reduce danger in Peckham Town Centre as part of our Vision Zero goal of eliminating death and serious injury on London’s roads. Proposed upgrades include wider pavements, improved pedestrian crossings and reduced speed limits. The engineering scheme in Peckham has been extremely complex to develop, however we remain committed to improving safety there and will be consulting the public on a design early in the new year , with a view to starting work following public feedback.”
So SIX YEARS after identifying this stretch of road as needing urgent intervention to protect citizens, and after three citizens being killed, we still don’t know what TfL is planning to do.
This is common practice: whenever the issue to be resolved appears too difficult, it is put to one side, hoping it will go away.
This is criminal. Literally: TfL, as the relevant authority
(a)must carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles
(b)must, in the light of those studies, take such measures as appear to the authority to be appropriate to prevent such accidents
[Section 39 of Road Traffic Act 88]
Nobody denies that the solution to Peckham High Street is difficult. The street is a busy shopping street with narrow pavements and is also used as a major arterial road. There are in other words irreconcilable demands. One cannot have an arterial flow with vehicles driving up to 50 kph on a narrow shopping street.
Some people are blaming pedestrians for crossing away from designated crossing places and encourage the introduction of barriers to pen in citizens. This is not a Vision Zero response: the waiting time at the pedestrian crossing is very long; moreover, the congested streets with stationary traffic induce people to cross along their desire lines. Barriers are conceptually alien to a programme that wants to encourage active travel.
It is clearly impossible to put a patch: TfL must have a “system” solution. Either
- the traffic artery is diverted to the much wider A2
- the current shops are relocated elsewhere.
And while the work is carried out, a 20kph (=12.4mph) speed limit needs to be implemented and enforced.
In the past year I have highlighted many safety concerns to Stuart Reid. Although I have always received a welcomed willingness to look at the issues, there is a distinct lack of urgency in fixing problems.
The Mayor’s Vision Zero Action Plan has been built around five interventions. Let me remind you of #5:
Post-collision response: Developing systematic information sharing and learning, along with improving justice and care for the victims of traffic incidents
My experience has been extremely frustrating: TfL is obstructing demands of greater transparency. There is no willingness to learn from failure and urgently to rectify situations that can lead to preventable deaths. Let me remind you that that is the purpose of S39 of RTA88. By kicking things in the long grass, Transport for London, for which you are responsible, are in contempt of the law and are criminally negligent.
Let me conclude by posting you this video, which should be watched daily by you, Stuart Reid and everyone involved in Vision Zero, so you can visualize how the seventy+ citizens you allowed to be killed look like:
UPDATE: On 28.01.20 TfL finally published its proposals to make Peckham High Street safer. They include lowering the speed limit to 30kph (20mph) encouraged by various raised tables, widening of pavements and pedestrian crossings, removal of some loading bays. There is no attempt to lower the level of motor traffic; people riding bikes are expected to share the road with buses and huge lorries like the ones in the pictures above.
TfL promises: “Depending on the consultation feedback we receive, we plan to start building the scheme in late 2020 or early 2021.”
So it has taken four years to design some really tame improvements. No attempt radically to change traffic flows to ensure a pleasant and safe environment for the thousands of people who shop here.
UPDATE 30.01.20. Tragically, two days after the proposals were published, a fourth fatality occured, at the corner of Kelly Avenue and Peckham Road, just 150 metres West of the proposed scheme.
UPDATE 12.02.20. Heidi Alexander has responded to our letter, see below. She states that the proposed changes are only “the first phase of changes being developed for Peckham High Street”. She has “instructed TfL to bring forward further changes to the junction of Peckham High Street and Peckham Hill Street as quickly as possible”
This is a classic Vision Zero case:
- a design, safe on paper, actually had a fatal flaw
- when someone actually was killed as a consequence of the flaw, no proper investigation took place
- Vision Zero London went to investigate and detected the fatal flaw
- we are now waiting for the flaw to be corrected, but how long will it take? The last words we heard: “This will not be immediate”
In the afternoon of Sunday 16th September 2018 Julia Luxmoore Peto had gone shopping in Deptford. Just before 17:00 she was at the large junction between New Cross Road and Deptford Church Street.
Until a few years ago, this enormous, extremely busy junction had no protected pedestrian crossing; Transport for London eventually placed signaled crossings on three arms of the junction. However the design had a fatal flaw, not immediately apparent from the drawings, but indisputable to anyone who spends fifteen minutes at the junction.
Julia’s intended path had three stages:
- An unprotected crossing of the slip road for traffic turning left
- A signaled crossing of three lanes of traffic coming from West: two going straight and one turning right
- A third crossing (signaled) of the westbound traffic.
The phasing of the motor traffic of the second crossing is a. straight only, b. straight and right turn, c. right turn only. Naturally the pedestrian light shows red during the three phases. However 90% of the traffic goes straight, and after the second phase, when it stops, it gives the misleading impression that it is now safe to cross.
For someone crossing North to South, this false signal is augmented by the fact that often the traffic stopped at red consists of lorries, which obscure the third lane.
In the picture above, the lady may forget that the third lane is still on green. Adding to this confusion is the geometry of the staggered crossing, a dog left, which leads people to look away from the potential danger coming from the right.
Julia crossed the third lane as a bus approached; she was hit and died in hospital the following day.
At the inquest, the Coroner issued a Prevention of Future Deaths report to Chris Grayling concerning the issue that the signal of the second stage of a staggered pedestrian crossing may confuse people crossing the first stage. This is obviously an important point, but it is unlikely to be the contributory factor of the fatal crash here.
The PFD notes that, following the crash, TfL had installed louvres on the pedestrian lights to obviate the problem cited by the Coroner. We alerted TfL’s Vision Zero team that that measure was insufficient because the real problem was elsewhere, namely in the confusion created by the hidden third lane. That was the fatal fault in the design that killed Julia. We arranged for TfL’s Vision Zero team to view the site and they agreed with our analysis.
At the site visit, a number of solutions were discussed. For instance the staggered crossing can be redesigned so that it is dog right, so that the attention of pedestrians is drawn towards and not away from danger. We wait to know what TfL will implement.
We also pointed out that the crossing of the slip road should have a zebra:
Finally, we suspect that there are many junctions with a similar flaw. We strongly urge Transport for London to review all their junctions if it is the case.
Julia was only 27 when she was killed; she was training to become a speech therapist. This is how her father remembers her:
“She loved her friends, the children she worked with, and her family. She had lots of friends and they were very important to her.She wanted to work with people and help people. She had travelled to lots of different parts of the world, including working at an orphanage in Mongolia during her gap year. She believed in social justice and she was a feminist, and she believed in supporting people who were less fortunate than herself. She would have made a cracking speech and language therapist.”
She was killed as a consequence of a faulty design.
Let the image of this wonderful young woman be a constant reminder to everyone at TfL that the way they design roads may have tragic consequences; it requires constant supervision whether people use the facilities the way they were drawn on paper. Humans are not robots: they are fallible and don’t like to waste their time. Good design takes the humanity of users into consideration and creates systems where attention is directed towards what matters.
With credit to Hannah Arendt
On Saturday 31 August, Pat went to his favourite pub, the Molly Bloom on Kingsland Road in Dalston, for his regular lunchtime pint. At 13:00, he left the pub heading back home; Pat, 69 was the victim of a stroke a few years ago and one side of his body had limited mobility. As a consequence he used a crutch to walk. He was also in the habit of pushing a wheel chair, in case he got tired and needed a rest.
He started crossing Kingsland Road but never made it to the other side. A lorry driver didn’t see him and killed him.
The crash is under investigation; we don’t know how the driver, on a Roman-like road without a bend for several kilometres, failed to see a disabled man pushing a wheel chair crossing the road right in front of him.
We talked to some of the publicans at the Molly and the quotes sounded familiar but were nevertheless shocking:
“He stepped out without looking; it was his habit; we kept on telling him not to do it, but he would not listen; he always used to come out of the pub with his wheelchair and just start crossing the road. Like he didn’t care.”
“But how did the driver not see him?”
“I don’t know; I was inside, I didn’t see it. The driver could have been looking right or left”
“But should he not be looking ahead of him?”
Shrug of shoulders. “It is very sad, but he always did that: just crossed the road looking ahead; he didn’t care”
Maybe Pat didn’t care, or maybe he did; maybe he cared to show that he did not want to be cowed into submission by a culture that made him second class, not because of his disabilities, but because he could not or did not want to drive.
I left the pub asking myself: how could these people, who have spent many hours together with Pat, blame him for being killed? The answer is well known: they have been brainwashed by a society that instills in all citizens the concept that roads are designed for people who drive; people walking and cycling are lower class and must defer to the powerful drivers. Pat challenged the powerful and he was rightly killed.
This fascist attitude has been inculcated in people’s mind for decades, most notably by the Government’s Think! campaign, a poster child for victim blaming.
Outside the pub, a few metres south, half of the pavement and half the carriageway was cordoned off for repairs. The people working at the site had parked their van on a double red line in a way that obscured the view to anyone wishing to cross the road; and many people were doing just that.
I approached the manager of the team and pointed out the danger of their van.
“We have to park it somewhere”
“I understand but the way you have parked it, it is creating a visual obstruction for people who want to cross.”
“They should not be crossing here. There is a signaled crossing 100m up the road.”
“But people do cross here because they want to get to the station. A pensioner was killed at this very spot”
“Yes, but he was disabled”
“So disabled people who cross the road deserve to die?”
“No, but he shouldn’t have crossed here, it is not legal”
“Excuse me, but where does it say that it is illegal to cross the road here?”
“Well, we have to park it somewhere” We were entering a loop.
Difficult to reason with people who have been zombified. We tweeted the image above, pointing out the danger, and thankfully the Mayor of Hackney promised to raise the issue with TfL. The next day, the van was parked elsewhere.
This fascist mindset is also prevalent among the Council Officers to whom Glanville should be providing guidance. Take our request to put two zebra crossings on Lee St, a rat run just one kilometre south of the fatal collision. One would be in front of Haggerston Overground Station, and the second at the entrance of a local park which every afternoon teems with children; the gate is at a dangerous T-junction with unpredictable vehicular movements.
One would think that officers would judge whether citizens safety would be improved by these zebra crossings.
Wrong! The priority for the Hackney Officers is to limit the inconvenience to people who choose to drive, i.e. the people who choose to poison and endanger the children playing in the park and the citizens who use public transport. Here is the response we have received from Andy Cunningham, Head of Streetscene at Hackney Council:
In other words the Council adopts some form of mathematical bullshit, and tells us that the zebras are not justified. Officers have spent considerable time and money to measure traffic data, and plugged it in a formula designed to say No.
If the officers had not been zombified, they would have spent thirty minutes at 16:00 at the gate of the park and they would have realised that the crossing is hazardous especially given the high number of young children using it, the volume of drivers using the road as a rat run and the difficulty in predicting turns at the junction.
If the officers had not been zombified, they would understand the fascist nature of their decision process: provision of safety to ordinary citizens has to surpass an impossible hurdle in order not to inconvenience the chosen race: motorists.
But this is the essence of the Banality of Evil: people just doing their job, their mind impregnated by an evil meme, namely that drivers are more important citizens.
We hope that the Mayor of Hackney understands the importance of his role and starts to cleanse the officers from this evil ideology, and understands that people like Pat don’t deserve to die just because they choose to cross the road where it is convenient to them and not where it is convenient to those who poison us.
Hat tip: Urban Design Group
Three junctions, where people have lost their lives or severely injured, and the wrong lessons have been learned.
Part 1: King William Street
This is probably the most dangerous junction for pedestrians in the City of London. It is on TfL’s list of 73 killer junctions and apparently TfL is designing a new layout (we have not seen any plans yet). I have raised the lethality of the junction with the City of London Road Safety team more than two years ago, but they claim it is TfL’s responsibility.
It would have been kept in the back burner for years, if it had not suddenly sprung in the news, following a court decision adjudicating costs on a collision between Robert Hazeldean who crashed into Gemma Brushet while riding his bike.
However, as is usually the case in England, the wrong lessons were learned. Nobody has focused on the junction and people have tittle-tattled on the judge’s decision to ask Hazeldean to pay for Brushet’s cost even if blame was apportioned 50-50.
Even shabbier has been the behaviour of organisations such as British Cycling and London Cycling Campaign which used the opportunity to market their memberships with inclusive 3rd party insurance.
No one has spoken about the junction, the root of the problem.
The key lethal feature of this crossing is that one arm has ALWAYS conflicting motor traffic. That is right: there is no phase when it is safe to cross.
To make things even worse, the Southbound motor traffic is most of the time stationary, thus giving a deceptive clue that it is safe to cross.
Add to this mix the English arrogance that who sits at a wheel (or rides a bike) has always priority over pedestrians and you have a death trap.
Now watch this two minute video, and you scratch your head: how can a civilised country design and refuse to alter something so dangerous and disrespectful to its citizens?
Notice from the beginning: motor traffic stopped at red, but West arm is not safe to cross.
00:35 Watch the speed of the bus – if a pedestrian had been confused and was crossing at that point, the driver would have had no chance to take evasive action -> death with 80% probability (and the pedestrian would have been blamed)
00:55 People crossing are given no clues that southbound traffic has now a green light and are taken aback.
01:05 Eight people squeezed between buses. Why do English people accept being treated with such contempt?
01:25 Pedestrians unsure about oncoming cyclists
The incident that had everyone fibrillating happened in 2015; in 2017 there was another incident where a pedestrian suffered serious injuries. We are now well in the second half of 2019 and TfL is still designing. They are in contempt of Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which compels the relevant Transport Authority to take action when road design has contributed to serious incidents, to prevent similar incidents from happening again.
Our solution is simple: get rid of the traffic light and put a zebra crossing. It should not take two years to do that.
UPDATE 12.08.19 – As Robert points out in the comment below, motor traffic is forbidden from turning left from Cannon Street. So the green arrow from the West is not a legal traffic flow. However if one is crossing King William Street, one may not be aware of this prohibition and one’s attention may be split three ways.
Two o’clock on a Saturday morning in Copenhagen and you see hundreds of people leaving bars and heading home on their bikes.
In London, we are not there yet. During a conversation with an officer at the Mayor’s Office who works in the 24 Hour London department, the following areas for improvement were identified:
- Anti-social driving – There is a perception among many drivers that the rules of the road are more malleable at night: speed limits are understood to be 15-20kph higher than what is stipulated for the day. The dominance of professional drivers who have an incentive to speed and of leisure drivers who want to show off their monster machines creates a cocktail of bad driving that is sanctioned by lack of enforcement by the police. Overall it creates a very hostile environment for anyone cycling.
- Indiscriminate parking on cycle lanes – During the day we have taxi drivers who claim they can invade mandatory cycle lanes. At night, the prevalent attitude is that cycle lanes are infrastructure for when the sun shines. This widespread lawbreaking is encouraged by the Police who in their ignorance of the Highway Code, do not enforce Rule 140. This creates a very dangerous environment, when people who ride away from the door zone, are harassed by impatient drivers, high on their self-importance boosted by German horsepower.
- Closure of parks – Go to Hackney Wick on a Friday night and you see the Overground station packed, but hardly anyway cycling home. The reason is simple: Victoria Park is closed and one is forced to ride on hostile roads. It is a mystery why certain authorities think that closing parks at night is a good idea. There are many parks which stay open and there seems no evidence that personal safety is at risk. What is needed is more lighting to make the parks feel safer.
- Some QuietWays don’t feel safe at night – The cowardly strategy by the Khan administration to push cycle routes to back streets is a disservice to those citizens who do not feel safe riding in dark neighbourhoods with low footfall.
- Fear of Theft – Many night venues have inadequate cycle parking facilities and often they are placed in thief-friendly positions, in dark corners or alleyways. Many people are reluctant to cycle at night for fear of not finding their bike when they need to return home.
The advantage of spending time and money on measures to solve the above problems is not only to improve safety but also to shift a certain image of English nightlife of heavy drinking and hooliganism towards a more gentle, more inclusive and more welcoming model.
All images by Copenhagen Cycle Chic
Morgan Penn lives on Tollington Road, one of the few streets in Islington where the Borough’s 30kph limit does not apply because it is managed by Transport For London.
It is one way and it has four lanes. It has the feel of a motorway; almost all drivers put their foot down, including bus drivers.
One day earlier this year, Morgan, fed up with watching near misses every day, attached a sign and a bunch flowers.
It didn’t make much difference, so Morgan prepared a bigger sign and decided to spend an hour a day flashing his sign to speeding drivers and recording the most egregious incidents.
His persistence has triggered a response from Transport for London, which is supposed to regulate the bus companies. Stuart Reid, the head of the Vision Zero, brought a couple of colleagues to examine the site; in a surreal exchange, as buses were hurtling down the road, just a few centimetres from him, he refused to take urgent measures to mitigate this clear and present danger. He had a different plan: do nothing for three-four years and wait for the Camden-Walthamstow route to go through its slow process of modelling, consultation, Sadiq Khan’s prevarications, and eventual installation.
TfL does have a programme to introduce 30kph on all his roads, but it is now focusing on Central London. When pressed as to why he wouldn’t bring Tollington Road to the speed limit of all the nearby streets (including Holloway Road an even wider road, which it intersects), Reid replied “Drivers would not respect it”. “Have you not considered speed cameras, in that case?” “We can’t do that”
Morgan has written to all the bus companies involved in this “small children with big toys circus”. Only one company responded, GoAhead, the only company whose driving record is very good here. They have issued posters in their depots, and through their telematics, they are monitoring the speed on this stretch of road. The drivers know it and they drive responsibly.
The worst offenders are bus drivers working for Arriva and Metroline. The two companies have a far higher injury rate in London than Go Ahead. The figures below, show the average number of injuries per bus for each company. Metroline and Arriva are considerably more dangerous than Go Ahead. So far they have refused to meet Morgan, to explain why their drivers behave in such an antisocial way.
At a subsequent site meeting Jon Pike, HSE Senior Manager at TfL has promised to put pressure on Arriva and Metroline to respond. He has also given an update on the Intelligent Speed Adaptation system, announced three years ago, but still being tested.
TfL is committed to rolling out Intelligent Speed Adaptation on buses and we are up to over 500 buses (Volvo specific) with this technology and hope to have at least 1,000 such buses with ISA by the year end. This retro-fit will mean that buses will have to drive up the speed limit and will not be able to speed. Such technology is being developed across other bus types; as you will see on your road there are many manufacturers. In other words, ISA is not an immediate solution.
Exactly. We need an immediate solution. There is one: TfL must instruct the operators which it is supposed to regulate, to run the buses at 30kph. This can be implemented in a few weeks and dramatically improve the safety of the street. This is Vision Zero thinking.
I leave you with an incident witnessed by Morgan and Pike, which I hope will stick to the latter’s mind until the right action is carried out:
While discussing the near misses at the crossing, we all witnessed that poor old lady who couldn’t get across the road in time, and the two buses moved forward towards her when the lights turned green, and then instead of patiently waiting, just belligerently jostled around her in a pack. It was lucky nothing more serious happened as they loomed over her. These near misses happen every day here, and this incident just highlighted the danger.
Waiting for someone to be killed is NOT Vision Zero.
Artwork by Morgan Penn
The Greenway is a stretch of traffic free cycle track from Stratford to Beckton on top of Bezalgette’s sewer. TfL has recently spent £4.5m on “upgrading” the track and now calls it Quietway 22.
As so much cycle infrastructure in London, it is very poorly executed as no money has been spent on the difficult bits. Hackney Cyclist has written an excellent report last month. Here I just concentrate on the TOTAL lack of intervention wherever the Quietway meets motor traffic. In other words, Will Norman is perfectly happy to treat active travel as a second class form of travel.
The link with Victoria Park is the very unattractive and unfriendly Wick Lane, which has no safe cycling infrastructure. NO MONEY SPENT HERE
Stratford High Street
After five hundred metres the Greenway meets three obstacles: a railway, a river, and a main road; in spite of the £billions spent on the Olympic project, these obstacles have been deemed too formidable for the English urban planners. The Greenway just dies and resumes where it is easy. One can follow a lengthy link provided by Marshgate Lane and CS2, but crossing Stratford High Street has not been considered at this point and one has to improvise. No wonder that very few West Ham fans cycle to watch their team. NO MONEY SPENT HERE
UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2019 – A short stretch of old Greenway, West of Stratford High Street has been reopened. However the NEW crossing of SHS has been badly designed: first of all it is staggered, for no good reason; secondly and most important the new type of green man signals are extremely confusing and likely to confuse people and induce them to cross at the wrong time:
It is worth noting that during the Olympic Games, the crossing was direct and additionally a bridge was built on top of it:
English people are not happy if they don’t erect barriers
Along the 5km of the main stretch, the Greenway meets five roads. In all occasions there are formidable barriers which are difficult to navigate with a cargobike. Money has been thankfully spent on lighting along the way; which means that the route is no longer closed at dusk as Newham used to do. But why not replace those horrible barriers with simple pillars?
The Greenway is interrupted by the A117 at its intersection with the A13. This junction exemplifies the English lack of respect, let’s call it disdain and utter contempt for ordinary citizens who don’t drive. To rejoin the Greenway, one has to negotiate SIX TRAFFIC LIGHTS. Naturally, this being England, no thought has been directed to synchronising these lights for the benefit of people walking or cycling. On the contrary they seem to be programmed to maximise the waiting time. On two arms, the conflicting motor traffic is stationary at red, and yet the pedestrian lights are also fixed at red. This may be an error, but this being England, nobody complains or the complaints are ignored. We tested the total time required to cross this junction:
Wait at 1: 1 minute 35 seconds; cross to island 5 seconds
Wait at 2: 55 seconds; ride to 3: 15 seconds
Wait at 3 20 seconds; cross 3 & 4: 15 seconds
Wait at 5: 1 minute and 15 seconds; cross 5 seconds
Wait at 6: 1 minute and 35 seconds; cross 5 seconds.
Total SIX MINUTES AND TWENTY SECONDS
Wait at 6: 1 minute and 5 seconds; cross 5 seconds
Wait at 5: 30 seconds; cross to 4: 10 seconds
Wait at 4 1 minute and 25 seconds; cross: 10 seconds
Wait at 3: 40 seconds; ride to 2: 15 seconds
Wait at 2: 45 seconds; cross 5 seconds
Wait at 1: 1 minute and 45 seconds; cross 5 seconds.
Total: SEVEN MINUTES
How can anyone think that this is acceptable?
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.
It seems that Sadiq Khan wants to reach #VisionZeroLDN by lying about the numbers.