You are reading a single comment by @Ktee and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Ktee
Dangers from HGVs to cyclists and pedestriansProposals to TfL for a campaign—AAT revised
Background to the problem
More than half of the cyclists killed in London result from collisions with Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), in many cases, but not all [AMY DO WE KNOW WHAT PERCENT?] turning left at junctions. HGVs also endanger pedestrians; although this danger is lower profile. 50% more pedestrians than cyclists are killed by HGVs. HGVs also seriously injure many cyclists and pedestrians
In the first six months of 2009, preliminary reports indicate that 7 cyclists and 4 pedestrians have died from collisions with HGVs. 6 of the 7 cyclists and all 4 pedestrians were women. [ARE YOU GOING TO UPDATE THESE FIGURES TO THIS MONTH? – I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN ANOTHER AT LEAST 2 CYCLIST DEATHS (MANCHESTER AND LEEDS)
Background to the proposals
The problem is longstanding and has been the subject of previous initiatives. These have shown that there is no “magic bullet”. A range of measures is needed to make a sufficient impact
Proposals
The proposals are organised [IS THIS THE RIGHT WORD? IMPLEMENTED IS BETTER?] by vehicle (HGV), road user, road environment, and safety management.
**HGV **
1. Mirrors. TfL should examine the imposition of restrictions on lorries allowed on streets in the GLA area. Such restrictions could be progressively tightened. Currently [YOUR MEANING IS UNCLEAR HERE. DO YOU MEAN THIS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED NOW, OR THIS IS CURRENTLY ALREADY THE CASE
2. Sideguards. HGVs without side overrun guards are also allowed to operate in London. Exclusions should be reconsidered
The aim should be to go progressively beyond the requirements of national and EU legislation to a situation in which HGV drivers in London can see their surroundings and operations are safe enough to aspire to zero deaths and serious injuries. Steps along this progression could be the establishment of transhipment centres and the development of a “London lorry
3. Sensors and alarms. Operators should be strongly encouraged to introduce sensors and alarms, as has Cemex. [DO YOU KNOW ABOUT BALFOUR BEATTY’S “360 DEGREE MIRROR” AND THEIR ‘ZERO HARM’ POLICY? CARILLION ALSO HAS A ‘DRIVING FOR WORK POLICY’ WHICH APPLIES TO ALL SUPPLIERS – I HAVENT INVESTIGATED BUT COULD USE THESE AS CASE STUDIES/ LEADING BEST PRACTICE
4. Warning signs
a. Cyclists. Every lorry should have a warning sign displayed on the rear nearside
b. Pedestrians. On the sides of HGVs at the front nearside, there should be warning signs about walking close to the front of a stationary lorry
**Road user **
5. Training programmes
a. Lorry drivers. The new training requirements for HGV drivers ( hours per year) make it possible to develop a focussed module, as has been done by LCC for bus drivers. A challenge will be to reach self-employed drivers and smaller firms. What about extending Lambeth programme
b. Foreign drivers. A special training course should be mandatory for drivers of foreign registered HGVs on London’s roads. [WOULD THIS BE CONTRARY TO EU LAW ON FAIR TRADE?]
6. Public awareness campaigns
a. Cyclists. Messages need to stress the specific dangers, without portraying all cycling as dangerous.
b. Pedestrians. The danger to pedestrians is less well known than that to cyclists and a media campaign may be needed.
c. ‘Exchanging Places’ demonstrations. Placing HGVs in prominent places, such as Trafalgar Square, and inviting cyclists into the cabs should be extended to target pedestrians. To increase HGV drivers’ awareness, similar demonstrations should be organised at lorry parks just outside London.
d. Videos. Clear, easy to understand, videos showing dangers should be made readily available for widespread distribution. The latest Metropolitan Police video is useful, but needs professional editing. [AND TOO MUCH EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CYCLIST TO KEEP OUT OF THE BLIND SPOTS...?]
e. Reporting campaign. Cyclists and pedestrians should be encouraged to report bad driving involving HGVs before a death or serious injury occurs. AND THE POLICE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED/ ORDERED TO TAKE THESE SERIOUSLY AND PROSECUTE WHERE POSSIBLE. CAN THEY LEGALLY DO SO ON WITNESS EVIDENCE SUCH AS THIS.
Safety management
**7. Coordination **
a. Commission. A standing Commission, led by TfL and including representatives from the Metropolitan Police, Cycling and Walking organisations, lorry operators, DfT and others, should be established to ensure good coordination.[/
b. DfT A closer dialogue with DfT is needed, including on side overrun guards, where the DfT has not followed up the report it commissioned from TRL some years ago
8. Research and policy development
a. Update. Knowledge of the problem and possible remedies should be brought together in a single report. This should take account of the current study on Cyclists’ Safety for the DfT. The research in 2007 on cyclists’ deaths should be brought up to date and extended to cover pedestrians.
b. Database. A constantly updated database of HGV-related deaths and serious injuries should be available to all parties concerned.
c. Reporting. Additional data should be collected on each K/SI collision involving an HGV and a pedestrian or cyclist. This data should include presence of mirrors, sideguard, warning signs, alarms, sensors, height of cab, presence of ‘blindspot’, driver’s vision, RELATIVE POSITION OF CYCLIST AND VEHICLE
d. Collision investigators. A meeting should be convened of collision investigators to garner lessons from their experience and insights.
e. Annual review. An annual review should be held with findings presented to the public
f. Research. Research should be conducted into the practicality of a London lorry with a smaller cab design and also the benefits for London of a civil compensation system based on driver liability, as being currently discussed in Scotland
9. HGV operators. A Code of Conduct for operators should be available and promoted through trade associations and the police.
10. Freight Operators Recognition Scheme. This TfL scheme should be expanded as quickly as possible. All public bodies in London, particularly London local authorities, should be gold standard members and should only employ FORS members for haulage contracts. ALL COMPANIES PROMOTING THE CYCLING TO WORK CAMPAIGN FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE ASKED TO ENSURE ALL SUPPLIERS – RIGHT DOWN THE SUPPLY CHAIN – SIGN UP TO FORS AND ACHEIVE GOLD STANDARD. (I think there are 40,000 companies signed up)
ALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE ALL SUPPLIERS ACHIEVE GOLD STANDARD. THIS COULD BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH AN AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSIDERATE CONSTRUCTORS SCHEME OR THEIR OWN CSR OR SUSTAINABILITY POLICES
**11. Commercial Vehicle Education Unit. **The CVEU has done much good work publicising the risk of HGVs to cyclists and should be continued. Collision investigation reports should include copies of their visit reports to any company whose driver was involved in a fatal crash.
12. Trade associations. The Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Mineral Products Association and other trade associations should be fully brought into this campaign AND BE ENCOURAGED TO ENCOURAGE ALL MEMBERS TO SIGN UP TO FORS – GOLD STARDARD PREFERRED AND MAYBE CREATE AN INCENTIVE SCHEME FOR MEMBERS TO DO SO
13. Operators. The new obligations under the Corporate Manslaughter legislation and Health and Safety guidance need to be promulgated more strongly, especially to smaller operators.
14. Prosecutions. A closer dialogue is need with the Ministry for Justice on prosecution policy. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency has been provided with additional powers and resources, so the current very low level of deterrent prosecutions could be raised.
15. Funding. A campaign adequately addressing the above topics would require funding, both internally and for any NGO input required
16. Considerate Contractor Scheme. This should be extended to include approach roads to construction sites. NO NOT ENOUGH! SHOULD COVER ALL TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS (DEMOLITION, RESUSED, RECYCLED, NEW AND WASTE PRODUCTS) ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SUPPLY CHAIN
I see this is a City of London scheme. More widespread is the Considerate Constructors Scheme as my comments above and detail of which is below FYI
Road environment
17. Fatal collision site inspection. Each site of a fatal collision should be reviewed for altered street lay-out there and lessons elsewhere. [/FONT
18. Trixie mirrors. The trials of Trixie mirrors on cycle super highways could lead to more widespread use.
19. Junction design. The indirect road danger from traffic speeds created by curves designed to accommodate HGVs could be reduced by tighter curves, with cobbled areas for HGVs
20. Major construction projects. Special measures should be developed for HGVs for the Olympics, Crossrail and other major projects (A high proportion of HGVs delivering to the main Olympic site failed a Police check last year). KC - I CHALLENGED THEM ON THIS WHEN I SPOKE TO THEM. THEY DENIED ITand I didn’t have the source info to back it up though. Do you? They said their job was to deliver the Olympics and they couldn’t control all their vehicles outside their logistic centres. This is irresponsible and disgraceful. That’s what they said about environmental issues years ago. Now they would be slammed by activists if they didn’t comply with environmental regulations and even best practice beyond regulation on projects such as the Olympics. “Special Measures” is vague, can we not just ask that they sign up to FORS gold standard for all vehicles/ supply chain
Conclusion
The above proposals are submitted as an element of Share the Road, specific to HGVs
London Cycling Campaign, CTC, RoadPeace, Living Streets