HGVs/lorries/cyclists: Inquest into death of Meryem Ozekman

Although taking trucks out of central London seems like a good idea, it's not really solving the problem. There have been cyclist killed in the outter boroughs, and others killed outside of rush hour. In fact isn't rush hour safer due to the number of cyclists on the road at that time?

The fact remains that the vast majority of people travel during the rush hour, and a disproportionately high percentage of casualties occur during the rush hour. Stress levels are at their highest then.

So if you restrict the times truck are allowed in, won't it just make it more dangerous to cycle in the city at those times the trucks are allowed in, as the same amount of journeys will still be made but in a shorter time frame? Or a lot of the loads are switched to smaller vehicles, but using far more journeys, e.i 1 truck = 5 vans (i'm guessing here), although i've no idea if this would be safer or not.

kidboy - have to agree. I think it would make it more dangerous during the off peak hours... Night time deliveries could be brought back, but then we have to work around noise complaints.

Of course, no-one's suggesting it would be a silver bullet solution. There would still be casualties outside the ban times. There would still be casualties outside Central London, etc. There would certainly be a sort of displacement effect that you describe. On the plus side, it is likely that some non-full load lorry trips would be replaced by trips with smaller vehicles (if a full lorry journey was required, it would be unlikely to be economical to replace that journey with five separate trips made with smaller vehicles--it would most likely be made at a different time). Road danger would certainly be reduced in the busiest times.

There is also an element at the moment of logistical laziness. Just like people make superfluous car trips (under two miles, no load or passengers carried, not made by a person with mobility difficulties--easily cycled in under ten minutes), so hauliers also make lorry trips that could be avoided. By targeting the type of vehicle, they can be persuaded to put more effort into planning their itineraries, leading to a degree of 'traffic evaporation'. Etc.--there are a number of other advantages, such as less noise and particle pollution.

Oliver - During the House of Commons meeting the other day several of the MPs talked about doing this. They thought a part time ban in test boroughs would demonstrate that it can help reduce collisions. They said this is why Kensington and Chelsea are testing contra-flow lanes. A precedent area makes it easier for them to do the same elsewhere. I don't think it would be pointless.

To clarify: The reason why I think it's pointless is because they should just move ahead with introducing it London-wide. They talk about a trial because they don't see the political will. That is something that campaigning can support or generate.

The trials that RBKC are doing are very different from this (NB they're trialling contraflow operation, not contraflow lanes). As the 'no entry except cycles' signage requires official DfT approval (and then inclusion in the next edition of the TSRGD), a trial is most certainly required and not possible on a large area basis.

There are no such legal barriers in the way for a London-wide part-time lorry ban. Nighttime lorry bans have been done before, the statutory instruments exist, so given the political will, they could do it.