# London proposal to ban thousands of lorries



## Starchivore (30 Sep 2016)

I don't think this has been posted yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37515940

"_*Thousands of lorries could be banned from London to make the roads safer for cyclists, under plans proposed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan.*

He wants a rating system from zero to five stars for heavy goods vehicles based on the driver's level of vision from the cab.

The 35,000 zero star-rated HGVs currently operating in London would be banned by 2020 under the proposals."

"Only those lorries with a rating of at least three stars would be allowed on London's roads by 2024."

"Mr Khan claimed the scheme would result in many lorries being upgraded before the ban comes into place.

He said: "I'm not prepared to stand by and let dangerous lorries continue to cause further heartbreak and tragedy on London's roads.

"The evidence is clear - HGVs have been directly involved in over half of cycling fatalities over the last two years, and we must take bold action to make our roads safer for both cyclists and pedestrians." "
_


----------



## Markymark (30 Sep 2016)

Let's be clear. Nothing is done to save lives. All that is ever done is to make people feel safer to encourage more to cycle. The no1 reason given for people not cycling in London is they don't feel safe. They key word here is 'feel'. I'm not saying this is bad but this isn't about saving lives.


----------



## RoubaixCube (30 Sep 2016)

The problem is every much the cyclists fault as the lorries in some cases -- some cyclists will try to squeeze themselves through the smallest gap just to get to the front of the traffic or either misjudge the amount of space needed that a lorry needs to turn left.

Its a lesson that we all (even as seasoned commuters) can learn from -- Just stay the f**k behind lorries unless you know you can safely overtake and dont try to squeeze past them to get to the front of traffic at traffic lights.


----------



## Markymark (30 Sep 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> The problem is every much the cyclists fault as the lorries in some cases -- some cyclists will try to squeeze themselves through the smallest gap just to get to the front of the traffic or either misjudge the amount of space needed that a lorry needs to turn left.
> 
> Its a lesson that we all (even as seasoned commuters) can learn from -- Just stay the f**k behind lorries unless you know you can safely overtake and dont try to squeeze past them to get to the front of traffic at traffic lights.


Any stats to back that up as the stats I've seen show that, yes, it is sometimes the cyclists fault, but more often the driver is to blame. Also, a cyclist 'sneaking up the inside' is actually riding in the provided cycle lane.


----------



## Markymark (30 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4490651, member: 45"]I'm not sure how you link your view to the story.[/QUOTE]
In what way? We get awful infrastructure designed by idiots to make cyclists feel safe when in reality makes it more dangerous due to the positions they put cyclists in. Safer lorries sounds great. Makes little difference when the driver doesn't give a monkeys. How many of these tragic deaths have been the result of a poor lorry design as opposed to poor driving?

Addressing the awful driving is harder, less popular, but would have a better result.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 Sep 2016)

Markymark said:


> Let's be clear. Nothing is done to save lives. All that is ever done is to make people feel safer to encourage more to cycle. The no1 reason given for people not cycling in London is they don't feel safe. They key word here is 'feel'. I'm not saying this is bad but this isn't about saving lives.


That may be true but there is an awesome message here.

That large vehicles are the danger...not the small vehicles that they hit.

I think that this is a huge change and will promote a shift in public opinion.

That has to be good.


----------



## RoubaixCube (30 Sep 2016)

Markymark said:


> Any stats to back that up as the stats I've seen show that, yes, it is sometimes the cyclists fault, but more often the driver is to blame. Also, a cyclist 'sneaking up the inside' is actually riding in the provided cycle lane.



Theres not always a cycle lane at least not through the routes that i commute


----------



## raleighnut (30 Sep 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> The problem is every much the cyclists fault as the lorries in some cases -- some cyclists will try to squeeze themselves through the smallest gap just to get to the front of the traffic or either misjudge the amount of space needed that a lorry needs to turn left.
> 
> Its a lesson that we all (even as seasoned commuters) can learn from -- Just stay the f**k behind lorries unless you know you can safely overtake and dont try to squeeze past them to get to the front of traffic at traffic lights.


I think lorries 'overtaking' cyclists and then turning left before they've even got past is more of a danger.


----------



## Milkfloat (30 Sep 2016)

If it happens, great for Londoners, however the rest of the country will have to deal with old trucks being used in our cities.


----------



## Markymark (30 Sep 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> That may be true but there is an awesome message here.
> 
> That large vehicles are the danger...not the small vehicles that they hit.
> 
> ...


Yes, this is good. But the real win that would properly save lives is the driver. This is token safety designed to make people feel safer with a marginal gain.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 Sep 2016)

Markymark said:


> Any stats to back that up as the stats I've seen show that, yes, it is sometimes the cyclists fault, but more often the driver is to blame. Also, a cyclist 'sneaking up the inside' is actually riding in the provided cycle lane.


You and @RoubaixCube both arguing about the same thing here.

Sure some cyclist make daft mistakes.

But a vast...really really vast vehicles, with no impact zones, crumple zones and virtually no vision, shouldn't be acceptable in situations where other road users can be...or can place themselves...at risk.


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2016)

Markymark said:


> How many of these tragic deaths have been the result of a poor lorry design as opposed to poor driving?
> 
> Addressing the awful driving is harder, less popular, but would have a better result.


It's a bit of both. A crap old lorry is difficult to drive well. I was trying to attract the attention of a lorry driver yesterday. I was jumping up and down at the left side but no joy. I had to walk forward about ten metres and flash a light before he saw me.

I think about a third of his small high left side window was taken up with mirrors and there were probably headlights of vehicles behind in them. I suspect he'd need to stand up and lean over to see within about ten metres of his wheel. It's just rubbish design. Such lorries should have to have a co driver looking out the left side window in built up areas IMO.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 Sep 2016)

Markymark said:


> Yes, this is good. But the real win that would properly save lives is the driver. This is token safety designed to make people feel safer with a marginal gain.


Again possibly true...and most certainly true outside of the mayors manor where his proposals have no jurisdiction


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> If it happens, great for Londoners, however the rest of the country will have to deal with old trucks being used in our cities.


And more of them, once all the better lorries have to be used in London. It's like how we get crap old buses "cascaded" down to pollute us.


----------



## Starchivore (30 Sep 2016)

Andy B'll get the same done for Manchester next, I would reckon, Hopefully.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 Sep 2016)

User said:


> It is an ironic consequence of London's transition into a city state post Brexit. The parts of the country that wanted out reap the reward they should have foreseen.


There is some gain for all though.

These proposals may be a cynical sound bite, which is sort of (although not totally) @Markymark s point.

But, whether they see the light of day or whether they are extended across the country, the message that it is these vehicles that are accepted as the problem...will be of benefit to all


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2016)

User said:


> Is that what happens to them? I thought the very worst ones were only used for rail replacement duties.


It tends to be coaches on rail replacement here (most often Mil-ken), but bus companies in this area are owned by rivals (Stagecoach and First) of the train operators (Go-Ahead, Keolis and Abellio).


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4490699, member: 45"]What's stopping other cities doing it?[/QUOTE]
Well, it seems London's lorry schemes are implemented by Traffic Order so unless there's some limitation on TROs (used in the rest of the country) which doesn't apply to TOs (used in London), there's nothing in theory.

However, the Mayor of London covers a much larger area than most elected mayors and probably has a better legal team than most. For Bristol, can you really imagine Marvin Rees, Elfan Ap Rees and the transport councillors of the other two Councils that Used to Be Avon agreeing it and withstanding pressure from the likes of the Freight Transport Association and Road Haulage Association? Maybe after London and a couple of other less-divided cities agree that bad lorries are too dangerous to their citizens, but I can't see them doing it now. I have my doubts that Ap Rees cares about people walking and cycling as long as they don't get in the way of his car.


----------



## hatler (30 Sep 2016)

This does strike me as a marginal gain from a strictly practical difference. By that I mean the circumstances in which this change will be of benefit is probably an occasional happening. Of the 12 (?) deaths on London's roads last year in which a large vehicle was involved, how many do you think would not have happened if this window was in place ? I can't imagine it would have been more than one or two. (Which is clearly immensely better than nothing.)

The conceptual shift (as noted above by @jonny jeez) is a good thing, though that will take longer to sink in.

Perhaps there is no one single magic bullet, and that zero deaths will only be achieved by a series of marginal gains. This initiative is to be applauded, even if it is only a marginal gain, but we should demand the next, and the next, and the next.


----------



## swee'pea99 (30 Sep 2016)

_"Thousands of lorries could be banned from London to make the roads safer for cyclists, under plans proposed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan."_

Full story here.


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2016)

hatler said:


> Of the 12 (?) deaths on London's roads last year in which a large vehicle was involved, how many do you think would not have happened if this window was in place ? I can't imagine it would have been more than one or two. (Which is clearly immensely better than nothing.)


https://beyondthekerbcasebook.wordpress.com/tag/area-london/ gives more detail on five such deaths, plus following links from the Denmark Hill case finds reports about one more, making six. From the pictures or descriptions on reports (including a DISGRACEFUL coroner's report which seems to assert that indicating gives the lorry priority), I think five of those six were left-turning lorries and one's not clear... so I think giving lorry drivers an easier way to see to their left may be a very good measure.


----------



## steve292 (30 Sep 2016)

mjr said:


> I have my doubts that Ap Rees cares about people walking and cycling as long as they don't get in the way of his car.


He doesn't. This is a man who won't support lowering the speed limit on the A371 past a school crossing from 60 to 40. He is totally carcentric, as best demonstrated by the re developement of J21 of the M5. Incidentally he lives opposite me.


----------



## hatler (30 Sep 2016)

Interesting. But of those five/six, in how many of those incidents had the cyclist made it as far as the door, and of those, how many would have been seen by the driver. I'm not saying it's zero, I just don't think it's all of them. Though perhaps this _is_ more than just a 'Dave Brailsford' marginal gain. I just don't think we should wait eight years to find out.

As I said, this is undoubtedly a positive move, but we mustn't let TPTB sit back on their presumed laurels for the next eight years until this change is fully in place, at which point they start scratching their heads (again) wondering why people are still being killed by HGV drivers.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Sep 2016)

swee'pea99 said:


> _"Thousands of lorries could be banned from London to make the roads safer for cyclists, under plans proposed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan."_
> 
> Full story here.



For some reason the news outlets are making this about cyclists when it's about people. There were 66 pedestrians killed too.

_"Nine cyclists and 66 pedestrians were killed in the capital last year, according to Transport for London."_​
GC


----------



## Milkfloat (30 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4490699, member: 45"]What's stopping other cities doing it?[/QUOTE]

Inaction, budget, laziness, media bias, the 'it's not London so who cares' effect, etc.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (30 Sep 2016)

A past TfL report talked about the need to get constructors to own the risk of injuries and fatalities on roads as well as on site. I don't know what happened about it but I'm fed up with building companies sticking ''considerate constructors'' notices outside their sites, where the heavy trucks are subject to speed restrictions and the aid of banksmen, only for said banksmen to usher trucks out onto the road, giving them priority over other road users, and waving them on their way, whereupon they trundle off up to far higher speeds without the extra eyes that the banksmen provide. Out of sight is out of mind seems to be the modus operandi. We need ''considerate constructors'' to include ''considerate transporters.''


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Sep 2016)

User said:


> I guess that would be because there are relatively effective lobbying groups keeping the cyclists' deaths in the public eye. There is no real equivalent for pedestrians, other than the ramblers association.



I have a more cynical view.

GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Sep 2016)

User said:


> Which is?



The media in general pits motorised road users against those on bicycles at every opportunity, this is just another example. The inverted commas around to protect cyclists is curious and makes me question their intent. 

Why didn't they use pedestrians as the benefitting group when more than seven times as many of them were killed? (I note your comment about lobby groups but that statistical fact is there for the BBC, and others, to use.)

GC


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (30 Sep 2016)

Doesn't matter what measures are brought in, the drivers still have to give a shoot. Most these days don't.


----------



## DaveReading (30 Sep 2016)

User said:


> I guess that would be because there are relatively effective lobbying groups keeping the cyclists' deaths in the public eye. There is no real equivalent for pedestrians, other than the ramblers association.



Plus, according to the article, the proportion of cyclists' deaths involving an HGV is two-and-a-half times that for pedestrian fatalities.


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2016)

hatler said:


> Interesting. But of those five/six, in how many of those incidents had the cyclist made it as far as the door, and of those, how many would have been seen by the driver. I'm not saying it's zero, I just don't think it's all of them.


Possibly not, but it did look like the front wheels ran the bike over where it was possible to see the aftermath. Go look for yourself.



deptfordmarmoset said:


> A past TfL report talked about the need to get constructors to own the risk of injuries and fatalities on roads as well as on site. I don't know what happened about it but I'm fed up with building companies sticking ''considerate constructors'' notices outside their sites


I get extra grumpy when a cycle route (track, lane, whatever) is blocked by a fence with one of those signs on, meaning that more cyclists are forced into the road space used by the lorries speeding to/from the banksmen.


----------



## Tin Pot (30 Sep 2016)

First we got rid of the lorries
Then we got rid of the vans
Then..?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Sep 2016)

User said:


> How is these proposals really any different from the restrictions that are already supposedly in place? We've had such announcements from the last two mayors as well - and little has really happened.
> 
> The road transport lobby is well organised and has deep pockets. They'll tie these proposals up between the lawyers and the courts for years, until they're dropped.
> 
> If you want to make the roads safer, properly fund the relevant Met traffic cops and start to prosecute drivers and operators for every breach, no matter how small.



And fit telematics and dashcams to them all.

GC


----------



## Glenn (30 Sep 2016)

What happens if all the lorry drivers refuse to deliver anything into London due to the cost to modify/buy new trucks, how long would London survive?


----------



## Tin Pot (30 Sep 2016)

Glenn said:


> What happens if all the lorry drivers refuse to deliver anything into London due to the cost to modify/buy new trucks, how long would London survive?



Eternally.

I hope they all feck off and never come back.

Beer can be piped in, kebabs are made from local vermin.

Trains, tubes, drones...and bike couriers can do the rest


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2016)

Glenn said:


> What happens if all the lorry drivers refuse to deliver anything into London due to the cost to modify/buy new trucks, how long would London survive?


Probably long enough for enough people willing to comply with the restrictions to take the delivery work, possibly at a slightly higher cost, though. Lorry drivers aren't delivering stuff in London for the fun of it, you know?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Sep 2016)

Glenn said:


> What happens if all the lorry drivers refuse to deliver anything into London due to the cost to modify/buy new trucks, how long would London survive?



Whatever the financial cost is doesn't matter, the haulage industry will pass it onto their customers and in turn onto us, the consumers. They're just complaining because they'll have an initial capital outlay. I don't think that compares with 75 deaths in one year in London alone.

GC


----------



## crazyjoe101 (30 Sep 2016)

At least if the standard of design on lorries can be brought up it puts more and more of a focus on the operation of the vehicle as time goes on and gives less excuse for why a driver could end up running someone over.
The biggest thing that could be done as others have said is making sure drivers and cyclists know how to use the road safely but I don't see how this is possible without enforcement, because it doesn't matter how well trained someone is if they simply cease to care after passing whatever test or training they've had.


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2016)

hatler said:


> Interesting. But of those five/six, in how many of those incidents had the cyclist made it as far as the door, and of those, how many would have been seen by the driver.






Can you imagine a car design being allowed that doesn't let the driver look below 3m in that direction?


----------



## Markymark (30 Sep 2016)

Glenn said:


> What happens if all the lorry drivers refuse to deliver anything into London due to the cost to modify/buy new trucks, how long would London survive?


Sounds an amazing situation. I'll setup a fleet that fulfils and run an entire monopoly and make a fortune. 

Seriously, there's safety laws in all industries. How many have simply stopped because they don't want to comply? There'll always be someone willing to fill the gap.


----------



## raleighnut (30 Sep 2016)

crazyjoe101 said:


> At least if the standard of design on lorries can be brought up it puts more and more of a focus on the operation of the vehicle as time goes on and gives less excuse for why a driver could end up running someone over.
> The biggest thing that could be done as others have said is making sure drivers and cyclists know how to use the road safely but I don't see how this is possible without enforcement, because it doesn't matter how well trained someone is if they simply cease to care after passing whatever test or training they've had.


I think you've hit the nail on the head there, it is the arrogance of *some* lorry drivers that needs to be addressed.
My solution would be to put the drivers position down to the level of a car drivers height, let's see how many other vehicles *some* HGV drivers bully then.

BTW if you have never been intimidated by an HGV driver in a car, van, motorcycle or on a bike please feel free to comment, also one of my best mates has just retired after 45yrs as a 'Class 1' driver and he reckons driving standards have gone really downhill for the past 15yrs (along with wages)


----------



## jonny jeez (30 Sep 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> First we got rid of the lorries
> Then we got rid of the vans
> Then..?


I don't think we get rid of anything.

We force proper redesign and common sense


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Oct 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> First we got rid of the lorries
> Then we got rid of the vans
> Then..?



Then we take Berlin.


----------



## Roxy641 (1 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Then we take Berlin.



Don't we have to take "Manhattan" first?


----------



## raleighnut (1 Oct 2016)

Roxy641 said:


> Don't we have to take "Manhattan" first?




View: https://youtu.be/JTTC_fD598A


----------



## hatler (1 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4492101, member: 9609"]Obviously better designed lorries will improve matters, but for me the problem does not lie there, we need better drivers, good fully alert fully switched on drivers are not the problem. I have read many of the reports where cyclists have been killed by lorries and in an astonishing amount of the cases the driver has been playing with a phone, the driver didn't have a licence, the driver was banned, the driver was an alcoholic and had numerous convictions for drink driving, the driver was texting, even one recently where the driver was busy tidying his cab when he killed a cyclist! It seems to me that in so many cases the person driving should never have been given the keys, these morons will cause carnage in the best designed truck in the world.

I would also like to take a look at drivers hours, 10 hours driving in a 13 hour day is not a problem on long distance, but that is too much in a town centre environment, drivers are going to get tired and make mistakes working those hours in high stress driving.
I would propose (and I'm sure the technology is there) tachos that record double time when in a built up area and also force hauliers to pay double rates to drivers for that time. This would have a number of beneficial points;
Drivers are going to be working less hours and more likely to remain focused.
The shorter days for the same money will make the jobs more desirable, better drivers with years of experience may be tempted by the work! it's not a popular part of the industry to work in - too often this type of work is given to newbies and idiots that no one else will employ.

There is a lot of good drivers out their who have been driving lorries for decades and never cause even the slightest of problems to others no matter what the cab design, on the other hand there are the morons who cause no end of problems - in many cases it is the person driving the truck that needs redesigned not the lorry.[/QUOTE]
I think that ^^^^ contains a great deal of sense.


----------



## Drago (1 Oct 2016)

If the residents of London stopped buying so much unnecessary and worthless crap then there would only be half as many lorries anyway. The lorries are only feeding the consumer society that those same residents are, for the most part, all too keen to perpetuate.


----------



## Roxy641 (1 Oct 2016)

User said:


> View attachment 146111



Or they could use trains to transporting goods. But that isn't in their "Vested interests"


----------



## Roxy641 (1 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Not for final delivery to customer in most instances.



Most final deliveries are delievered to people by a small to medium vans, not lorries. I guess the exception would be if a person buys a large item (such as a bed), but most people aren't buying a large item on a regular basis, they are buying things that typically will fit in a van.


----------



## EnPassant (1 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Not for final delivery to customer in most instances.


Indeed. However there was also a mass move to the roads over canals and rail historically for economic reasons. There are vested interests that would like to keep it that way.

Hub and spoke, rail, canals even for delivery to local hubs, vans and small lorries to final destination if needs be.


----------



## Roxy641 (1 Oct 2016)

User said:


> As I recall, the vehicle with the sticker was more of a van than a lorry.



Than fair enough. But not all of us order online that involves a van to deliver to us. And before I get the full time workers saying "But I work five days a week and don't have time to go to the shops". When I had a full time job I still managed to go to the shops, and take the good(s) home with me (and I didn't even have a car). Some shops have late opening hours one day a week. I realise I may be in a minority here though. So, the point is, it isn't that we have to stop buying things, but try and find alternatives if we really want less lorries/vans on the road. We can either be part of the solution, or we can be part of the problem. It can be something that we choose to do. For larger items, I realise we can't always have that option.


----------



## raleighnut (1 Oct 2016)

A lot of clothes are delivered hanging on wheeled racks, takes a big trailer to get them in.


----------



## Roxy641 (1 Oct 2016)

raleighnut said:


> A lot of clothes are delivered hanging on wheeled racks, takes a big trailer to get them in.



And before the use of the mass use of lorries to transport them, they would have been been transported by railways, it was never the customers decision to transport them by road. There is only so much we can blame consumers rather than the people that have the power to decide how they are delivered.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2016)

It's difficult enough to get some retailers to let me get the last leg done by friendly cycling or bike-respecting Royal Mail, DPD or APC, rather than bloody dangerous traffic-law-flouting Yodel or UPS. Now I'm supposed to try to get them to restock by rail?  I'll ask but it's unlikely to work...


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4492160, member: 45"]It's the tipper trucks that are the killers. 

If only Londoners would stop building things.[/QUOTE]
I do believe that this is a valid point. But why cant tipper trucks be restricted to stay away from city centres during the rush hours. The rush hour must be the most uneconomical time to deliver construction materials either way. 

Ideally they would only have access after around 7.00 but I appreciate the knock on effect this would have to construction efforts and general modernisation...such as the delivery of safe secure cycleways.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Oct 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I do believe that this is a valid point. But why cant tipper trucks be restricted to stay away from city centres during the rush hours. The rush hour must be the most uneconomical time to deliver construction materials either way.
> 
> Ideally they would only have access after around 7.00 but I appreciate the knock on effect this would have to construction efforts and general modernisation...such as the delivery of safe secure cycleways.




Rush hour traffic in London is now near enough all day.


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> Rush hour traffic in London is now near enough all day.


For cars perhaps but for more vulnerable types like pedestrians and cyclists...definitely not


----------



## ianrauk (1 Oct 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> For cars perhaps but for more vulnerable types like pedestrians and cyclists...definitely not




Well, less car traffic means less build up which means more space for peds and cyclists. London is just full to the brim with everything and evryone. Banning lorries during rush hour or any hour in that fact is not the answer.


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> Well, less car traffic means less build up which means more space for peds and cyclists. London is just full to the brim with everything and evryone. Banning lorries during rush hour or any hour in that fact is not the answer.


 space isn't the issue at all Ian. It's the danger that these vehicles present. That is the "positive point" that this suggested policy admits.

I'm talking about reducing the amount of time vulnerable road users are in the proximity of dangerous vehicles, with extremely limited vision, no impact or crumple zones and often exposed machinery that can entangle or catch.

I'm not talking about creating more space.


----------



## srw (1 Oct 2016)

Roxy641 said:


> And before the use of the mass use of lorries to transport them, they would have been been transported by railways, it was never the customers decision to transport them by road.


In London and the SouthEast, the railways are full with passenger traffic. There is (as near as makes no difference) no room to add goods trains to the mix.


----------



## srw (1 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Except at night.


At the moment (and, as far as I can tell, until the end of time), night is needed for maintenance and development. And, sensibly, there are restrictions on traffic movements during the night to minimise noise.


----------



## snorri (1 Oct 2016)

Roxy641 said:


> And before the use of the mass use of lorries to transport them, they would have been been transported by railways, it was never the customers decision to transport them by road.


In the era when railways were big in freight carriage, the delivery from rail freight depot to customer was by horse and cart.


----------



## simongt (1 Oct 2016)

snorri said:


> In the era when railways were big in freight carriage, the delivery from rail freight depot to customer was by horse and cart


Indeed, It was privately owned lorries 'door to door' ability that won favour over rail, plus they could accept / refuse any load wheras until the mid late 20th century, the railways were legally obliged to carry ANYTHING they were offered under the common carrier law.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (2 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Most is probably overstating it.



I suppose there's room for an optimist.


----------



## Buddfox (2 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> It's difficult enough to get some retailers to let me get the last leg done by friendly cycling or bike-respecting Royal Mail, DPD or APC, rather than bloody dangerous traffic-law-flouting Yodel or UPS. Now I'm supposed to try to get them to restock by rail?  I'll ask but it's unlikely to work...



Bike respecting DPD? Pull the other one...


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2016)

Buddfox said:


> Bike respecting DPD? Pull the other one...


Just saying what I've seen locally. Not had DPD ignore cycles-only restrictions and nearly kill me, or block junctions, unlike Yodel.

UK Mail also seem much better lately.


----------



## jarlrmai (3 Oct 2016)

The whole delivery industry is based on ignoring traffic laws.

Illegal parking is what allows them to keep the costs down.


----------



## Markymark (3 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Run freight into cities at night, as they do in a number of European countries with busy commuter lines...


But what then? You have lorries driving into London to pickup at stations to drop to final destination? Might as well just bring the lorries in.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Run freight into cities at night, as they do in a number of European countries with busy commuter lines...


Anyone else think it's surprisingly short-sighted that there don't appear to be any freight elevators on the Crossrail route? Surely it won't need 24 trains/hour capacity for passengers all through the night? The feeder lines link to so many docks - I think including one they reinstated to take some of the dirt out.


----------



## Markymark (3 Oct 2016)

User said:


> As has been pointed out up thread, most deliveries do not require large lorries. Plus we also have a number of unused underground railways and stations which could be repurposed.
> 
> Rather than simply succumbing to the "lorries are inevitable" meme, how about a little creative thinking?


Disagree. I get many deliveries per day at work. Lorries come. As I'm at the north end of central London we often get early drop off before 10 am. It takes them a while as the lorries are full. Smaller lorries just means more of them. Maybe that's better but again not so sure v


----------



## subaqua (3 Oct 2016)

User said:


> As has been pointed out up thread, most deliveries do not require large lorries. Plus we also have a number of unused underground railways and stations which could be repurposed.
> 
> Rather than simply succumbing to the "lorries are inevitable" meme, how about a little creative thinking?




we looked into it for deliveries to building sites. 

we could sort the extra cost bit out as would be less faffing so could get more done in less time. 

biggest hurdle is sec61 notices. any residential near a site and the occupiers rightly don't want to be kept awake at night while deliveries happen. barbican cause a storm . i feel sorry for brookfield at moment!


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Oct 2016)

Markymark said:


> Let's be clear. Nothing is done to save lives. All that is ever done is to make people feel safer to encourage more to cycle. The no1 reason given for people not cycling in London is they don't feel safe. They key word here is 'feel'. I'm not saying this is bad but this isn't about saving lives.





RoubaixCube said:


> The problem is every much the cyclists fault as the lorries in some cases -- some cyclists will try to squeeze themselves through the smallest gap just to get to the front of the traffic or either misjudge the amount of space needed that a lorry needs to turn left.


I'm afraid you're both wrong - and here's why.

Left turning lorries do not kill cyclists. Left turning lorries of a particular stripe kill cyclists, and, indeed, lorries of the same stripe run down cyclists from behind. And those lorries are construction traffic, primarily skip lorries. Cyclist deaths in London are not caused by the victims, they're caused by a particular type of driver, working for a particular type of company.

And the very good news is that the person who is taking on the role of Cycling Czar is an Architect, who knows that windows is one way to get to this problem as is the JCT Contract. And that's what he intends to do - to get to grips with a particular problem that is causing the deaths of cyclists both experienced and inexperienced.

Just to say..........I started banging on about this to the LCC in 2007, and was told by Tom Bogdanovich that it was too complicated. Charlie Lloyd's LCC lorry campaign that followed focused on local authority vehicles which was a nice earner for the LCC, but did nothing to get to grips with construction traffic. It's taken this long to get the powers that be turn their attention to that which matters, and, so, it's time for three cheers!


----------



## Markymark (3 Oct 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm afraid you're both wrong - and here's why.
> 
> Left turning lorries do not kill cyclists. Left turning lorries of a particular stripe kill cyclists, and, indeed, lorries of the same stripe run down cyclists from behind. And those lorries are construction traffic, primarily skip lorries. Cyclist deaths in London are not caused by the victims, they're caused by a particular type of driver, working for a particular type of company.
> 
> ...


I bet you if I trained and drove one of these lorries I could do it without killing cyclists. It's the driver.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Can you imagine a car design being allowed that doesn't let the driver look below 3m in that direction?


this is a disgraceful thing, but it's not really just about the window. It's about the attitude. And I saw the same thing happen today just south of Liverpool Street, and, yes, it was exactly the same type of truck.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Oct 2016)

Markymark said:


> I bet you if I trained and drove one of these lorries I could do it without killing cyclists. It's the driver.


it the culture within construction that allows designers (be they Architects, Civil Engineers or Structural Engineers) to forget about injuries and deaths off site, that allows contractors not to submit risk assessments for transport as opposed to just deliveries, that allows the HSE to say 'nothing to do with us, guv and that allows companies like Thames Materials on the road because the designers don't say 'you must not employ these people'. It goes from top to bottom, and the only way to stop it is via the Contract. Quite how the Mayor gets to sort this out remains to be seen, but my hope is that every planning permission will come with a condition that requires all hauliers to pass a test of some sort to get on an approved list, and that some clever lawyer sees fit to launch an action on behalf of the relatives of a person killed by a tipper lorry not just at the lorry driver, but at the designers who failed to do their job.


----------



## subaqua (3 Oct 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> it the culture within construction that allows designers (be they Architects, Civil Engineers or Structural Engineers) to forget about injuries and deaths off site, that allows contractors not to submit risk assessments for transport as opposed to just deliveries, that allows the HSE to say 'nothing to do with us, guv) and that allows companies like Thames Materials on the road because the designers don't say 'you must not employ these people'. It goes from top to bottom, and the only way to stop it is via the Contract. Quite how the Mayor gets to sort this out remains to be seen, but my hope is that *every planning permission will come with a condition that requires all hauliers to pass a test of some sort to get on an approved list*, and that some clever lawyer sees fit to launch an action on behalf of the relatives of a person killed by a tipper lorry not just at the lorry driver, but at the designers who failed to do their job.




so similar to what Crossrail have , with FORS Gold. that hasn't stopped things sadly. it should ultimately end with the designers. that i do agree with. it might stop them doing silly stuff with the building let alone the getting the materials to site. it would certainly remove the urge to get things done as cheap as possible after cutting costs way past the bone to win work.


----------



## hatler (3 Oct 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> it the culture within construction that allows designers (be they Architects, Civil Engineers or Structural Engineers) to forget about injuries and deaths off site, that allows contractors not to submit risk assessments for transport as opposed to just deliveries, that allows the HSE to say 'nothing to do with us, guv and that allows companies like Thames Materials on the road because the designers don't say 'you must not employ these people'. It goes from top to bottom, and the only way to stop it is via the Contract. Quite how the Mayor gets to sort this out remains to be seen, but my hope is that every planning permission will come with a condition that requires all hauliers to pass a test of some sort to get on an approved list, and that some clever lawyer sees fit to launch an action on behalf of the relatives of a person killed by a tipper lorry not just at the lorry driver, but at the designers who failed to do their job.


I successfully badgered my previous (sizeable) employer to change their contract letting procedures for building works so that truck operators' safety records on the road were taken into account. Any large client hoping to carry out major construction work with the merest hint of any sense of CSR should be an easy touch. But its a long-winded way to go about getting a global improvement. Legislation is the key, so all credit to Khan (or more likely, whoever has told Khan that this is something which must be done).


----------



## marknotgeorge (3 Oct 2016)

Before my dad retired, he was a HGV driver. Before that, an international coach driver. Before that, a bus driver. Before that, he drove ambulances, and he also drve trucks in the Army. He's a driver. And he was wary of tippers.

One of our clients is a sort-of broker for tipper drivers, I think (I've never quite got to the bottom of it). His books, which come in in two large plastic crates, are labyrinthine. Some people are both debtors and creditors, and there are loans and discounts flying about all over the place. 

This morning, I noticed a Tarmac artic. Bright, white and relatively shiny. I also noticed the writing telling me it's owned by a franchisee haulier. Even at this end of the carrying mucky stuff to and from construction sites there's sub-contracting, with all the buck-passing and obfuscation that goes along with it.

Carrying muck about is mucky business, in more ways than one.


----------



## RoubaixCube (4 Oct 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm afraid you're both wrong



Ummm, excuse me...



Is this not the cyclists fault for getting himself into a potentially fatal predicament in the first place?? Its unfair to lay the blame solely on the lorry driver when you have cyclists like these. Hence why i said its a bit of both. Ive seen situations like these many times and even called out to the cyclists not to do that just like the gentleman in the video. Some people listen, some people dont. 

Drivers arent perfect and nor are cyclists. but just having a little common sense and/or road safety awareness can work wonders for both sides.


----------



## hatler (4 Oct 2016)

That is undoubtedly a very stupid cyclist. However, dellzeqq's assertion was about what type of truck kills an overwhelming majority of cyclists (at least on London's roads), and in the video clip that cyclist does look to be alive. To put it another way, that one video clip isn't enough to draw a global conclusion.


----------



## marknotgeorge (4 Oct 2016)

Safe road use requires both the attitude and competence to do the right thing, and the ability to deal with those that can't or won't do the first. Education is fine as far as it goes, but if vehicle design stops you dealing with the foulups, then it needs to change.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Oct 2016)

and, let's just give the haulage industry a big pat on the back. Truck driving in my part of the world has improved out of sight in the last twenty or thirty years. Employers such as ASDA, Sainsbury's, Cemex (the latter after an avoidable tragedy) have clearly put a lot of effort in to raising standards. In the case of Cemex the trucks are fitted with sensors. Now..............if they can do it, why can't the owners of tipper lorries? 

I read @marknotgeorge post. He has it right. But, again, the culture is there from the get-go. People in my line of work routinely draw underground parking because the agents tell clients they've got to have such-and-such a number of spaces. I can tell you from practical experience that writing a risk assessment that follows the usual eliminate/mitigate route, and, in doing so, shifts the decision back to the client is not a great way to get on in the world - and, until the RIBA gets interested (which it may be forced to do, now that Sadiq Khan is on the case) those letters will be in short supply.


----------



## Pete Owens (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> I guess that would be because there are relatively effective lobbying groups keeping the cyclists' deaths in the public eye. There is no real equivalent for pedestrians, other than the ramblers association.



The equivalent group for pedestrians would be Living streets:
https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/
They are rather smarter than some cycling groups in that they have worked out that if you are trying to encourage people to walk then constantly banging on about how unpleasant and dangerous it is would be counterproductive.


----------



## hatler (24 Jan 2017)

TfL have launched the online consultation about 'direct vision' trucks.

It only takes a couple of minutes to complete.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2017)

hatler said:


> TfL have launched the online consultation about 'direct vision' trucks.
> 
> It only takes a couple of minutes to complete.


Correct link is https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/direct-vision-standard-phase-1/consultation/intro/


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Correct link is https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/direct-vision-standard-phase-1/consultation/intro/


All the flipping options for who should control the standard are motorists - I think the list offered was: HGV operators; HGV manufacturers; TfL; No opinion; and Other (write in). Please write in that you want vulnerable user groups represented in the standard's development.


----------



## hatler (24 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Correct link is https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/direct-vision-standard-phase-1/consultation/intro/


Whoops ! Thanks for that. Now corrected.


----------



## hatler (24 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> All the flipping options for who should control the standard are motorists - I think the list offered was: HGV operators; HGV manufacturers; TfL; No opinion; and Other (write in). Please write in that you want vulnerable user groups represented in the standard's development.


Yup. Pretty poor that I thought. My response was that this should be a governmental body with a nationwide remit.


----------

