Blood on the streets

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.

Agree with both points though London has already began to demand elevated standards from HGV companies built into procurement contracts (See FORS fleet operators recognition scheme where lorries have to be fitted with a certain level of kit and drivers trained on bikes (Though I am dubious about the excessive monitors and mirrors since they have 1 pair of eyes)

The liability law seems to work elsewhere in europe and does mean that people who can cause more harm by their transport choice have more responsibility to look out (So cyclists hitting a ped would also be held responsible)