And how is it achieved? And define rush hours (congestion in parts of London would lead me to say most of the daylight hours).
I'm sure you all realise how lorries travel for hours to make deliveries or collections from central London.
If they get caught up in traffic, are they supposed to just pull over and park? Where exactly?
If they then need to avoid rush hour (whatever that is) +/- 90 minutes each side, does that mean all heavy goods vehicles can only be in London at lunch time?
How does that work?
And given that residential roads would object to night deliveries... how would that work?
And given that a lot of the vehicles are related to the construction industry, and that people object to construction work at night time... how would the deliveries and collections work for them?
A flat ban is overly simplistic to the point that I can't see it being logistically possible without creating worse consequences at some other time (lunch madness as all HGVs rush in).
I still think that declaring metropolis and large cities to be special zones where both vehicle and driver need to meet elevated standards is the better way. The vehicles requiring sensors, cameras, and safety equipment well in excess of today's standards, and the drivers having to pass an additional test that is renewed every year or two, aimed at ensuring that the driver meets a set of measures that test their ability to drive in incredibly closed and busy areas (city centres and wider metropolis).
Those measures could be used to limit the number of such vehicles accredited and drivers approved, thus pushing up the cost (scarcity) of making deliveries by large vehicles in London and other cities, and promoting the use of smaller vehicles within cities and large hub depots around cities. It still leaves open the possibility for construction to carry on functioning, but those vehicles and drivers now meet a very different standard.
A flat ban is naive, but the above could work... in my opinion.
If I really got my way I'd change liability by law within insurance. It would simply be: If you hit a cyclist or pedestrian, it's your fault... no exceptions. Then if I'm dreaming, I'd start making death contributable to the driver be manslaughter.
And how is it achieved? And define rush hours (congestion in parts of London would lead me to say most of the daylight hours).
I'm sure you all realise how lorries travel for hours to make deliveries or collections from central London.
If they get caught up in traffic, are they supposed to just pull over and park? Where exactly?
If they then need to avoid rush hour (whatever that is) +/- 90 minutes each side, does that mean all heavy goods vehicles can only be in London at lunch time?
How does that work?
And given that residential roads would object to night deliveries... how would that work?
And given that a lot of the vehicles are related to the construction industry, and that people object to construction work at night time... how would the deliveries and collections work for them?
A flat ban is overly simplistic to the point that I can't see it being logistically possible without creating worse consequences at some other time (lunch madness as all HGVs rush in).
I still think that declaring metropolis and large cities to be special zones where both vehicle and driver need to meet elevated standards is the better way. The vehicles requiring sensors, cameras, and safety equipment well in excess of today's standards, and the drivers having to pass an additional test that is renewed every year or two, aimed at ensuring that the driver meets a set of measures that test their ability to drive in incredibly closed and busy areas (city centres and wider metropolis).
Those measures could be used to limit the number of such vehicles accredited and drivers approved, thus pushing up the cost (scarcity) of making deliveries by large vehicles in London and other cities, and promoting the use of smaller vehicles within cities and large hub depots around cities. It still leaves open the possibility for construction to carry on functioning, but those vehicles and drivers now meet a very different standard.
A flat ban is naive, but the above could work... in my opinion.
If I really got my way I'd change liability by law within insurance. It would simply be: If you hit a cyclist or pedestrian, it's your fault... no exceptions. Then if I'm dreaming, I'd start making death contributable to the driver be manslaughter.