HGV bans and other measures

Following on from the death of a cyclist on Victoria Street today, I started to discuss HGV bans and other HGV/cycling safety measures with Buffalo Bill and others on twitter (I'm @cyclingtiger).

I didn't persist too far with it, partly because 140 characters is a little inadequate to fully tackle such a subject with the depth that it deserves. I left a few things unsaid there that I think are saying so this is mostly for Bill and the others.

Whilst I join in Bill's anger and impatience that another life has needlessly been lost almost two decades after a ban on HGVs was mooted by the BMJ, I see some issues with that make a blanket ban a difficult think to implement in a meaningful fashion across a significant area. It's unfortunately true that over the course of the last twenty years we have come even more dependent on the movement of HGVs, not less. Big business would likely weather the impact of an immediate blanket ban, small business less so. It's not so much about the cost of moving goods from HGVs to LGVs, but about the cost of restructuring, re-planning and re-balancing the logistical function. Loss if life is never acceptable, but there again, loss of livelihood should be acceptable as the only alternative.

There's also the issue of the location of a ban. Inside the M25? Inside the North/South Circular. It doesn't really make sense for such a concentrically oriented ban. There are arterial systems that traverse both of these that
aren't available to cyclists and wouldn't add any value to ban HGVs on, other than on where they might go thereafter. Central London, the old Zone1? It would be a start, but it doesn't really extend far enough. I can think of a couple of HGV/cyclist instances that have occurred outside of this area. Besides Central London isn't just bustling Soho, Old Street, Earl's Court St Pauls and so on. There's also those places like New Covent Garden, industrious and function.

There's suggestion of rush hour bans and inverting the nighttime ban. Neither should be that appealing in my eyes. Rush hour is difficult to define at best and if you ban HGVs you elevate the risk to cyclists in two ways. 1) during rush hour you decrease the volume of traffic, which in turn would likely to redress with more drivers. A change in the driver:cyclist ratio is likely to increase risk. You also decrease the volume of slower moving traffic and thus increase overall vehicle speeds. I'm not really able to calculate the change in risk, but I don't know that it would be that significant. 2) Even if there are gains, you're now loading all of the risk onto the borders of rush hour. Dusk and dark will exacerbate this sometimes. You're then encouraging cyclists to prioritise their travel for rush hour with all of the other traffic. Inverting the nighttime ban could possibly work, presuming the diminished visibility doesn't counter the risk mitigation. But haulage and construction companies aren't going to grind to a daylight halt just for the ban. The real prospect is that HGV/cyclists deaths would just move way from London.

I posited the argument that if there was no other traffic, HGV/cyclists deaths might not occur at all. It's not an entirely unfounded argument. when I'm out cycling in the country, where urban traffic and movement factors aren't an issue I reckon that HGV drivers are consistently more careful and safe than other drivers. Without all of the other traffic, HGVs and cyclists in London would have space and freedom that they need to interact safely.

In theory, there should be nothing unsafe to cyclists about the movement of HGVs on a main road in London, but the human factor is what complicates this. Ideally there should be no need for HGVs in the properly, non-arterial areas of London, but again the human factor complicates this. When I suggested a range of measures to Bill, what I think is key to all of this isn't elimination, but to introduce to HGV movements a degree of understandable and communicable predictability. Design, defined routes, traffic management, proscribed activities would all form a part of this. I also don't think it would be needlessly complicated, costly or difficult to implement if there were sufficient collective will.

I don't think HGV bans are necessary or ultimately workable. The technology to mitigate the risk posed to cyclists already exists. All HGV/Lorries in the UK should be fitted with camera systems, blind spot sensors, alarma, skirts and guards. It is no longer prohibitively expensive and we've already seen such systems have a positive impact at various TFL sites around London.

The thinking in this country is all wrong. We expect cyclists to dress up like Judge Dredd to protect themselves but it is the vehicles that should be neutered to protect us from them (not interested in a helment debate!).

Paris ban HGV at certain hours in their city, obviously a very different city to London, but surely that'd be a good solution.

Was all the HGV collision were in rush hours? or merely the construction industries inability to provided a sensible timeline to prevent their tippers from being in a tight time limit?

All HGV/Lorries in the UK should be fitted with camera systems, blind spot sensors, alarma, skirts and guards.

Charlie show that while these measurement are a good move, the biggest improvement would be the driver's skill.

merely the construction industries inability to provided a sensible timeline to prevent their tippers from being in a tight time limit?

From my personal observation of tipper lorries, this seems to be the issue as the drivers often seem aggressive in traffic.

The thinking in this country is all wrong. We expect cyclists to dress up like Judge Dredd to protect themselves but it is the vehicles that should be neutered to protect us from them (not interested in a helment debate!).

In Japan the presumed liability is that the larger vehicle is at fault.

The effect of that simple thing is pretty huge.

Also agree that timetabling is a key point - Goes without saying that a driver in a rush is a dangerous driver.

Perhaps some sort of limit on the distance/number of deliveries permitted per hour?

Agree with Ed on driver training - I now have an image of him on some HGV forum asking members if they have considered HGV training, but I digress - Some combination of training plus the alterations to the vehicles would be the ideal.

One thing I proposed a couple of years ago was that a ban on vehicles within major city/town centres without additional licensing and training for the driver and additional equipment (sensors) on the vehicles.

This would still permit deliveries during the day and rush hour, would not block the construction industry, etc... but would require that there is a much higher standard of driver and vehicle in the city centres where the majority of people are.

For deliveries from Europe, etc... the larger vehicles would have to go to delivery depots around the capital to drop their load and drivers and vehicles licensed to go into city centres would finish the job.

From my personal observation of tipper lorries, this seems to be the issue as the drivers often seem aggressive in traffic.

Does anyone know how tipper drivers are paid? I only ask as I tend to agree with Mirius (although other non tipper lorries are bad too, and some are also well driven).

I wonder if, for example, payment by load incentivises quick and careless driving? Is it zero hour contracts or similar that are in part responsbile for this type of carelessness?

In my limited experience (i've not done a proper analysis) but it seems that the HGVs belonging to some of the larger companies, with clear brandign on the trucks, tend to show signs that they've been trained and are applyign that training. I suspect they have contracted hours as opposed to 20 runs a day.

Does anyone have any information of the fatality involved HGV excluding tippers? I've seen some rare collision with HGV in the past few years, but the tippers are a common sight.

If there are strict Health and safety regulations on large construction site, budget for training, qualifications, regulations, speed limits on different vehicle types, why does this not extend outside the site?

My thinking was that building site use contractor, whom by the time they drove out of the building site, they're not responsible for the drivers.

Tipper drivers are often single man bands - owner/operators and so difficult to regulate and only beholden to themselves.

I think I'm right in saying that it is these construction owner/operators who disproportionately kill cyclists.

^^ Agreed, I think it should.

I guess we have all seen this:

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/woman-cyclist-killed-on-victoria-street-highlights-need-for-safer-lorries-for-safer-cycilng

^^ Agreed, I think it should.

I agree, the building site should have the responsibilities to imposed a sensible time frame and/or hire decent contractor with a good track record.

Since when is it acceptable to speed up construction for the lives of several people?

^ better still have legislation that includes subcontractor activities outside the site. Some qualification or track record.

This morning I was overtaken by and then proceeded a tractor, with all the sticky-outy buts that come with a tractor. This was in Bishopsgate at 8:30.

What the hell is a tractor doing on a road like that at 8:30 in the morning on a school day?

might a ban during rush hours be an option?

might a ban during rush hours be an option?

Of course.

Is it feasible?

What should all the HGVs on the road do if they were caught in traffic when rush hour began?

How much would this impact construction or other industry that requires the ability to move heavy loads?

Of course it's an option, but the ever so simple solutions tend not to win approval as they can be defeated by attacks from too many directions.

There's a lot of things we can do, and the one I like the best (as it is hard to defeat) is just to say that we should bring back the controls that were in place during the Olympics.

For, if it worked to massively promote cycling and public transport, and limit traffic flow, across London, when London was most busy... then it's been proven that it works. Hard to argue against something proven to work fine.

I still like the idea of copying the maritime world and having Pilots- i.e. when an HGV crosses the boundary of the north or south circular they have to stop to pick up a pilot, who is (possibly) mounted on a motorbike/similar.

It then becomes the responsibility of the pilot to navigate the HGV to its destination, and, critically, the pilot would be responsible for any collisions en route.

^ I like that thinking. 4 eyes is better than two, and you'll have an official person aboard that can check that the driver is doing his/hers job properly, and vice versa

The idea being that if they were on a motorbike they would drop back to the blindspot position and communicate to the HGV driver that they were clear to proceed etc.

A radio headset thing would seem convenient for this- such as motorcyclists use to communicate with one another when in convoy.

• the lorry driver would feel like the prince of Wales being escorted through town. Albeit by a chap on a moped instead of a convoy of policemen, but still
  

I didn't want to post this in the rider down thread as it seemed slightly inappropriate to mention this there. At the construction site at the corner of Palace Rd and Victoria St they've gone all out on the safety measures now...

I use the road virtually every weekday and for the first time on that corner (Victoria turning right into Palace Rd) I was acknowledged by one of the concrete purers goign on site.

I always stay back but I saw him checkign his mirrors and he saw me, wound down his wondows and offerd me an opportunity to coem through. I refused but good that he'd seen me etc.

Then when Ie turned into Palace Rd behind him construction workers wer straight out with Stop/Go signes so he coudl get into the site safely. I wonder if they'll do the same when vehicles leave?

This was a welcome 'addition' (I'd not seen this before - but it coudl be I just don't arricve when site traffic does) but if it is an addition perhaps you coudl argue it's a bit late (but again I may be beign unfair).

The thing that pissed me off though was as soon as I passed the site I was then confroneted by two articulated lorries tryign to deliver to Cardinal Place (they have an underground entrance on Palace Rd just down form the construction site).

Both lorries were signalling left (and in the middle of the road) yet I saw mopeds and cyclists undertake.

To be honest after waitign for 4 min with the Marks and Spencer's lorry just sitting there blocking traffic both ways I was gettign a tad pissed off as he didn't seem to be doign anything - either looking for other road users or moving. I can almost see why two cyclists undertook (in this situation) still fucking melts the pair of them.

In good news a Ken bike user stopped with me and waited properly.

I still like the idea of copying the maritime world and having Pilots- i.e. when an HGV crosses the boundary of the north or south circular they have to stop to pick up a pilot, who is (possibly) mounted on a motorbike/similar.

It then becomes the responsibility of the pilot to navigate the HGV to its destination, and, critically, the pilot would be responsible for any collisions en route.

Does the extra cost of having a pilot outweight the losses of human live?