Lucia Ciccioli

Transport for London

Gareth Powell
Managing Director
Surface Transport

Mr Russell Caller Transport for London

HM Assistant Coroner Ith Floor, Zone R4
Inner West London Palestra
Westminster Coroner’s Court 197 Blackfriars Road
33 Tachbrook Street London SEI 8NJ
SW1V 2JR

garethpowell@tfl.gov.uk
25 July 2018

Dear Mr Caller
Report to prevent future deaths

We were sorry to hear of the tragic death of Ms Ciccioli, and pass our sincere
condolences to her family.

We have carefully considered your Prevention of Future Deaths report dated 16 May
2018, following the inquest which took place on 26 January 2018.

Responsibility for managing the road network in Greater London is shared between
Highways England Company Limited, Transport for London (TfL), and the 32 London
local authorities, plus the City of London.

Highways England Company Limited is the highway authority for and manages the
national motorway network on behalf of the Secretary of State, including those parts of
the M25 orbital motorway, the M1, M4 and M11 within Greater London. TfL is both the
highway and traffic authority for all GLA roads (see below). TfL is also the traffic
authority for the GLA side roads (see below). The London local authorities are the
local highway authorities and responsible for all the remaining public highways within
their boundaries, including strategic roads.

“GLA roads” were initially designated by the Secretary of State under section 14A of
the Highways Act 1980 (the 1980 Act) and are now updated by way of order by the
Greater London Authority (GLA) under section 14B of the 1980 Act. TfL is both the
highway and traffic authority for all GLA roads.

“GLA side roads” were also initially designated by the Secretary of State under section
124A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the 1984 Act) and has since been
updated by way of orders by the GLA under section 124B of the 1984 Act. There is a
separate GLA side roads order for each London Borough. Although the London local
authorities remain the highway authority, TfL is the traffic authority for the extent of the
GLA side roads.

(OE disability
MAYOR OF LONDON a jee Wit umnien RIE

Both the GLA roads and the GLA side roads are also known as red routes due to them
being marked with either single or double red lines.

The London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW) and TfL as traffic and highway authorities
for the roads at the junction of Lavender Hill and Elspeth / Latchmere Road will work
together to reduce road danger through this junction.

Both authorities are seeking to reduce collisions across London. In the Mayor's
Transport Strategy (March 2018), TfL has committed to a ‘Vision Zero’ policy, which
aims to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries from road collisions on London's
streets by 2041.

On receipt of your report, officers from LBW and TfL met at the junction of the A3036
(Lavender Hill) with the A3220 (Elspeth Road / Latchmere Road) to discuss the six
matters of concern that you raised. Of these six matters, point (3) relates to a road for
which TfL is both the highway authority and traffic authority, with the remaining points
relating to roads for which LBW is the highway authority. Both TfL and LBW have and
will continue to work collaboratively in relation to the concerns you have made.

We set out below TfL’s responses to your concerns.

Matters of Concern 1 and 2 (LBW is highway authority & TfL is the traffic authority)

1) There is an inadequate cycle lane leading up to the traffic lights leading up to the traffic
lights at the junction with LATCHMERE ROAD and ELSPETH ROAD (the cycle lane is

coloured pink on the Reconstruction Plan}.

2) There is inadequate protection generally for cyclists riding towards the junction with
LATCHMERE ROAD and ELSPETH ROAD particularly for those cyclists that wish to
go straight over the said junction towards LAVENDER HILL or for those cyclists that
wish to turn right at that junction into LATCHMERE ROAD.

TfL recognises that dedicated left-turn lanes potentially increase road danger for
cyclists proceeding straight ahead. We also acknowledge that the existing cycle feeder
lane into the advance stop line is less than the minimum width recommended in the
current version of the London Cycling Design Standards. However, the cycle lane was
compliant with the relevant standards that were in place when it was first implemented.

Working with LBW, TfL will investigate, including traffic modelling, whether the
dedicated ‘left-turn’ lane can be removed at this location, reducing the number of traffic
lanes from three to two. This would enable the footway on the south side of the
eastern arm of Lavender Hill to be widened, and the remaining two traffic lanes to
operate as a near-side ‘ahead and left-turn’ lane, and an off-side dedicated ‘right-turn’
lane.

The provision of an improved cycle feeder lane will also be considered as part of the
revised design, with consideration of the constraints on the western arm (see also
response to points 4 and 5, below).

Matters of Concern 3 (TfL is both the highway authority and traffic authority)

3) There is a yellow box in the middle of the said junction (situated between position 3 and
4 on The Reconstruction Plan) which causes concerns to cyclists when they are either
proceeding straight on or turning right from the junction as they are prevented from
legally stopping in the said yellow box.

A yellow box has been provided at the junction to help prevent obstructions. All
vehicles, including pedal cycles, may only enter a yellow box when the exit is clear.
Our observations have indicated that the junction does potentially experience exit
blocking from adjacent junctions. Without the yellow box facility, vehicles would remain
in the centre of the junction at the end of each traffic light green stage. Vehicles
entering the junction during the next traffic light green stage would then need to
navigate around those vehicles already in the junction. This increases road danger, as
inter-visibility between vehicles is reduced. For this reason, we consider that the yellow
box should be retained.

Matters of Concern 4 and 5 (LBW is highway authority and TfL is the traffic authority)

4) There is no cycle lane provision in LAVENDER HILL immediately past the said
junction.

5) The narrow aspect of LAVENDER HILL immediately past the said junction places
cyclists in a vulnerable position when they arrive in LAVENDER HILL from the said
Junction.

There is no existing cycle lane on the exit side of the western arm of Lavender Hill,
because there is insufficient carriageway space given the need to accommodate
general traffic progressing from the two existing straight-ahead lanes on the eastern
arm of Lavender Hill.

Providing a cycle lane in this scenario could give cyclists a false sense of security as
wider vehicles would need to enter the cycle lane to avoid a collision with an adjacent
vehicle.

However, if the proposal to change the layout on the eastern arm is feasible (as set
out under our response to concerns 1 and 2 above), this would enable a cycle lane to
be provided on the western arm, parallel to a single general traffic lane.

We note that there is an existing loading bay adjacent to local businesses on the exit
side of the western arm of Lavender Hill which is dedicated to loading between the
hours of 10am and 4pm Monday to Saturday but can be occupied by any vehicle
outside the hours of 7am to 7pm, Monday to Saturday. Cyclists must navigate around
this box when it is occupied, bringing them into further potential conflict with adjacent
traffic. Unfortunately, because the footway is narrow adjacent to this loading bay
(excluding the private forecourt), it prevents the loading bay being relocated off the
carriageway. However, working with LBW, TfL will investigate whether the loading bay
can be relocated to nearby Lavender Gardens or reduce the operating hours so that
cyclists are less likely to encounter an occupied bay. Any changes to the loading bay
will require consultation with the local community.

Working with the LBW, TfL proposes to complete a revised design of the junction and
set out next steps by December 2019. Subject to public consultation, any necessary
approvals, and available funding, construction could begin in 2020.

Matters of Concern 6 (LBW is highway authority)

6) The dip in the road in LAVENDER HILL (between position 4 and position 5 on the
Reconstruction Plan) is dangerous and is in need of urgent repair.

We understand that the dip has now been repaired.

Yours sincerely

Managing Director — Surface Transport