Blood on the streets

No HGVs between 7am and 9am and 5pm and 7pm plus some routes where they are banned altogether without advanced permission.

As pointed out above it will take a lot when the 'infrastructure' encourages it

In the case of the Bow roundabout yes it does. I am not familiar with that area but I looked at that cycle cam video posted on the Standard yesterday and it looks a complete fucking mess. Reminds me a little of Staples corner in North London. A place I would never contemplate cycling.
The difference there is that they have not even attempted to accommodate cyclists.
They probably assume, correctly that it is far too dangerous a junction for a cyclist to even consider using.
The problem seems to be caused by a half arsed approach to integrate cyclists into the existing structure when surely they would be better of admitting that the place is a no-go for cyclists and come up with an alternative measure or route. All they have achieved is to give (vulnerable) cyclists the feeling they are safe when clearly it is the exact opposite

Like I say, i don't know the area but is there no way of avoiding it on a daily commute?

works in paris. 0 hgv deaths last year.

tho the problem appears to include busses.

Like I say, i don't know the area but is there no way of avoiding it on a daily commute?

It's the only way AFAIK.

ban buses at rush hour?

You can't ban HGVs in London. Perhaps time-limit them (as Ed suggests)
You can't blame infrastructure for bad driving.
You can't blame riders for drivers not looking (smdsy)
If a driver has a blind spot they should assume someone is there

Most incidents are with private cars:

1. drivers turning right from main road to side road at junction into path of cyclists
   
2. Left hooks
   
3. Close overtaking (like through pinch points)
   
4. Car dooring
   
5. Shunt from behind
   
   

All these are because drivers failed to see/look where they're fucking going!

works in paris. 0 hgv deaths in 2011.

ftfy.

Don't know what their 2012 status is.

they can certainly ban the fuckwit driving a double decker who was parked up in the asl at baylis road this morning reading a metro.

No HGVs between 7am and 9am and 5pm and 7pm plus some routes where they are banned altogether without advanced permission.

^this.

plus enforced retrofitting of blind spot mirrors / sensors before being allowed in city centres.

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.

if you banned HGVs at certain times you would make the same roads impassable in the 'open' hours for cyclists and likely more dangerous as vehicles rush to get through their journeys on time en masse.

And the drivers might think of it as a "safe zone" and look out even less.

ftfy.

Don't know what their 2012 status is.

It was 5 in 2012. Here is the data since 2006.

http://www.paris.fr/pratique/deplacements-voirie/prevention-et-securite-routiere/prevention-et-securite-routiere/les-accidents-entre-2006-et-2012-a-paris/rub_8697_dossier_55410_port_20649_sheet_11125

works in paris. 0 hgv deaths last year.

tho the problem appears to include busses.

Unless you have something which suggests otherwise I don't believe this Paris HGV ban actually exits.

All I've found is this:

HGVs cannot enter the Paris area on Mondays and day following a public holiday, from 6 a.m to 10 a.m),
HGVs cannot leave the Paris area on Fridays and days preceding a public holiday, usually from 4 p.m. onwards.

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)

they can certainly ban the fuckwit driving a double decker who was parked up in the asl at baylis road this morning reading a metro.

Number plate.
phone company; Report.

Then nothing happens.

Well what I'm talking about is licensing access.

Those licenses being part vehicle standard, and part driver standard... both are needed to fulfil the licence.

And then access to central London (or whatever the defined area is) requires a licence.

And then for ALL vehicles above a certain class (LGVs, HGVs) that are not licensed are excluded from London at ALL times. And fines using the ANPR cameras are automatically issued for every day that a vehicle enters without a licence.

And then for the licensing system to act as a control, checked annually (because the driver and vehicles need to maintain the licence), to limit and restrict the volume of such vehicles on the roads.

That's basically the proposal.

Also, start enforcing the 20mph zones now. In my estimation, about one driver out of 20 actually adheres to the limit, and if you do you are bound to have someone tailgating within 30 seconds. Surely it only teaches the drivers it is OK (in fact, socially expected) for one to speed.

Well what I'm talking about is licensing access.

Those licenses being part vehicle standard, and part driver standard... both are needed to fulfil the licence.

And then access to central London (or whatever the defined area is) requires a licence.

And then for ALL vehicles above a certain class (LGVs, HGVs) that are not licensed are excluded from London at ALL times. And fines using the ANPR cameras are automatically issued for every day that a vehicle enters without a licence.

And then for the licensing system to act as a control, checked annually (because the driver and vehicles need to maintain the licence), to limit and restrict the volume of such vehicles on the roads.

That's basically the proposal.

Which would be totally ignored by all foreign registered lorries.

I think you need physically present enforcement- traffic police, basically, rather than issue a fine based on a number plate that goes straight in the bin when it arrives in (say) the hauliers offices in Lodz.

Number plate.
phone company; Report.

already done.

i took this round the corner. not holding my breath.

http://imgbin.me/image/GZSJFGYA

Foreign trucks go in and out of ferry ports. Fine them (or confiscate their vehicle) at that point. Educate them on the ferries coming in.

We're an island, it's not like we have porous borders and no way to intercept all foreign HGVs fairly efficiently.

And this idea that foreign drivers don't know the UK rules... how many of the incidents are attributable to foreign vehicles? From what I can see, most are domestic.

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, just maybe, windscreens that are fit for purpose in a built up, heavily populated, urban environment - Ones that you can actually see out of.

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.

Stricter liability would be a start - combined with a step change approach to normalising cycling as road use, possibly through including cycle training as part of the standard driving test. Make it a road use test instead.

Agree with the 20mph thing, it's appalling how many drivers are so used to 30mph being the norm that they don't acknowledge lower limits.

Not sure how many of London's cycling fatalities are the result of speeding though, I'd guess about zero.