Another HGV death in London (split from original thread)

[deptfordmarmoset]

Admin edit: These posts have been split from the Cyclist Down forum as they were not directly related to the OP they were posted on.

Awful - saw that just as I was reading this: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hgv-drivers-caught-in-bike-safety-operation-8946997.html

I believe the lorry unroadworthiness figures work out at about 53% so the results are not far out of line.

 

[newfhouse]

It's the HGVs.

This. It doesn't matter how it's dressed up, HGVs and particularly skip/construction vehicles are just not (currently) built or sometimes driven to share the roads safely.

 

[Linford]

I believe the lorry unroadworthiness figures work out at about 53% so the results are not far out of line.

You are implying that it is always the fault of the lorry...is this proven to be the case ?

 

[Davidsw8]

I do look at some of these big vehicles and think, they are just way too big to be driving through these streets. E.g. last week on Pall Mall, when one of these couldn't get out of it's parking space without totally mounting the long raised central bit, all the traffic backed up for ages while he tried, painfully slowly, to turn in to the road.

I know construction has to be undertaken and these deliveries have to be made but this current way just isn't working. Maybe more, smaller vehicles where possible would be some help but then the pollution goes up with the additional fuel used and then you have to pay for an extra driver etc...

 

[Beebo]

You are implying that it is always the fault of the lorry...is this proven to be the case ?

It's an uneven contest, and the cyclist will always come off worse. It doesnt realy matter whether it's the lorry driver at fault or not.
HGV drivers have to understand they are driving a potential killing machine and take resonsibility to protect others.

 

[stowie]

You are implying that it is always the fault of the lorry...is this proven to be the case ?

Without wishing to speak for DepfordMarmoset, I don't think this is what was implied at all. I think what was being said was that 10 lorries out of 20 were clearly in breach of regulations whilst another 5 were suspicious and under investigation. This lines up with other studies and actions on lorries which have found around half are unroadworthy in some way (either driver or vehicle).

Boris - our cycling mayor - was very quick to blame cyclist actions for cyclist fatalities. What evidence he has for this is a mystery to me when all evidence seems to point the other way. I will eagerly await his views on having a significant proportion of HGVs breaking the law in the city. And bear in mind that many of these are breaking the laws concerning driving time and rest breaks which is possibly even more dangerous than having a lorry with defects.

And, as Beebo says, we are not talking about a meeting of equals here. We are talking about a company and driver bringing a very dangerous piece of equipment with limited visibility and operating it in close proximity to pedestrians and cyclists. This is about accounting for externalities.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

You are implying that it is always the fault of the lorry...is this proven to be the case ?

No, not always, and that's probably why lorries never get taken to court.

When they stopped the budget for on-road checking in London, the last figures, from what I can remember, included tachograph irregularities. So, the faults dues to licensing, maintenance and driver were taken together. Over 50% of vehicles and drivers stopped were illegal then and as impunity seems to have reigned since then, I'd expect it to be well over half now.

 

[Linford]

I was of the impression that there were also buses in mix ?

I'm not defending the actions of the errant HGV drivers (had a very close call a few months ago near Evesham with a 7.5 tonner and reported it as it truly scared the bejesus out of me) , but I think it important that they are not blamed unfairly if they are not doing anything wrong.
If cyclists are riding up the inside of them when they are turning left (and into the blind spotof the HGV), then poor cycling standards must also shoulder its share of blame.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

@Linford - I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I was responding to the link to the Standard about the HGV task force non-compliance check and how those figures compare with earlier figures. I know nothing about the circumstances of this particular fatality.

 

[stowie]

[QUOTE 2776116, member: 30090"]No it's not. You'd need to have two 45 minutes breaks every 4 and a half hours of driving. The 45 mins breaks can be split but they must be a minimum of 30 mins and 15 mins.[/quote]

So driving for 10 hours without a stop could probably be viewed as a fairly major infraction?

Not wishing to have an argument on a thread which is detailing another fatal casualty, but I would consider 60 infractions amongst 20 vehicles (5 of which presumably had no infractions) as something that should cause concern.

 

[stowie]

Beano - as someone who will drives, does the contractor (for example the construction company for whom the load is being delivered/ / removed) have any responsibility for the operation of their contracted vehicles outside the site?

When I had a company car, I think something must have changed a few years ago (maybe in EU law - I worked for a multinational) and they really tightened up on company car owners. We had to have regular eyesight tests, prove our driving license each year as well as servicing / MOT of vehicle and went on driving courses (which were actually very good). I assumed that something had altered and the company had some responsibility for the car and the driver.

If many of the tipper trucks are owner driver, or small contracting companies then does this mean the construction company contracting them has no responsibility? Because if they had I suspect it might cause a change in attitudes overnight.

 

[stowie]

[QUOTE 2776141, member: 30090"]I don't now if the driver stopped or not, they could have stopped but just had the required rest. A driver having two 44 minute breaks would go down as not having the legal rest even though they have stopped.[/quote]

Sergeant Richard Golding, of the Met’s Traffic Command, said: “The two biggest HGV offences are drivers’ hours and how long they go without a break.

“We stopped one Belgian man who had driven 10 hours without stopping at one point, which obviously makes him tired and is very dangerous.”

The above quote seems to indicate that he had driven 10 hours without any stop. I understand that there maybe more "minor" infractions to do with administration and paperwork (although these may be masking more serious infractions) but the quote seems pretty clear. If the lorry driver had rested but maybe not for the requried time, the officer's quote is deeply misleading.

 

[stowie]

[QUOTE 2776222, member: 9609"]I really don't see how - if you post a letter do you have any responsibilities on how the postman drives his van?

From my experience when it comes to haulage, 'the hirer' will only be interested in three things, how cheap, how quick and how reliable - and that is not good for safety.[/quote]

No, thank God. Most post vans seem to be driven like they are in a demolition derby - but it appears few actually kill pedestrians and cyclists to the extent that tipper trucks do.

So, humour me. If a contracted tipper truck driver knocks over and kills someone on site is the construction company at least partly liable? As they have responsibility for health and safety on site? Would the construction company have a problem if said driver was found to have been using a mobile and over the drink limit (as was the case with Dennis Putz)? Could this liability be extended (in a diluted form) to when contracted vehicles are used on the public roads? So in the case of Dennis Putz the end contractor would have a duty of care to ensure that all subcontractors are audited for their drivers and safety record?

I just don't know how it works at the moment. It sounds like the main construction contractor when selecting a haulage company has absolutely no requirement to ensure that said company operates correctly with qualified drivers and roadworthy vehicles?

I have been in a business where the shipping of certain goods to certain countries is banned. If the goods end up in a country that they shouldn't then you are in big trouble even if you didn't ship it directly there yourself. You have to prove that you couldn't have known that the items were likely to be shipped on. And in certain cases, not only did the supplier get big fines, but even the courier company got big fines even though they would have had no way of knowing the contents of the packages. So paperwork was so utterly tight it was ludicrous. We would prefer to lose business than have any doubt about the providence of the companies we were shipping to. A duty of care placed upon those doing the prime contracting might make them very interested in making sure their contracts went to firms with a good safety record and reliable audit trails.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

No, thank God. Most post vans seem to be driven like they are in a demolition derby - but it appears few actually kill pedestrians and cyclists to the extent that tipper trucks do.

So, humour me. If a contracted tipper truck driver knocks over and kills someone on site is the construction company at least partly liable? As they have responsibility for health and safety on site? Would the construction company have a problem if said driver was found to have been using a mobile and over the drink limit (as was the case with Dennis Putz)? Could this liability be extended (in a diluted form) to when contracted vehicles are used on the public roads? So in the case of Dennis Putz the end contractor would have a duty of care to ensure that all subcontractors are audited for their drivers and safety record?

I just don't know how it works at the moment. It sounds like the main construction contractor when selecting a haulage company has absolutely no requirement to ensure that said company operates correctly with qualified drivers and roadworthy vehicles?

I have been in a business where the shipping of certain goods to certain countries is banned. If the goods end up in a country that they shouldn't then you are in big trouble even if you didn't ship it directly there yourself. You have to prove that you couldn't have known that the items were likely to be shipped on. And in certain cases, not only did the supplier get big fines, but even the courier company got big fines even though they would have had no way of knowing the contents of the packages. So paperwork was so utterly tight it was ludicrous. We would prefer to lose business than have any doubt about the providence of the companies we were shipping to. A duty of care placed upon those doing the prime contracting might make them very interested in making sure their contracts went to firms with a good safety record and reliable audit trails.

I'm not sure what we're allowed to talk about on here but I'll persist, though I've just had posts removed, because right now I believe that the greatest respect we can show the dead is to try to improve the chances of the rest of us surviving.

Anyhow, current state of play is ''Out of site, out of mind.'' Beside the driver's responsibility to do a regular cursory inspection of the vehicle and the constructor's responsibility to keep site deaths down, there's very little accountability. However, the emphasis of the TfL report I keep quoting (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/SSP-20131009-Item05-Cycle-Safety.pdf ) on extending responsibility to the 99% of the time these trucks are on the road makes me optimistic that some change is about to come.

EDIT: And there will be a press release from the Met about our roads tomorrow morning. I think it's still embargoed.

 

[Monsieur Remings]

Having driven at times over the years professionally, particularly in-between other jobs, there's a fairly high chance that a great number of HGV drivers in the capital are agency drivers (precarious employment). This isn't meant to tarnish all with the same brush but the unwillingness of companies to pay drivers properly, make them part of a team and instead just use them as and when they are required - quite often when someone doesn't turn up means the job is already pressurised for the guy from the agency turning up.

Vehicle checks? Don't be stupid, he won't know the routine and it'll take too long. Besides, matey did it yesterday or at least he said he did. Anyway, the stocks already loaded up, stick yourself on the weighing bridge over there and off you go...I think the Satnav works but you can read a map whilst you're driving can't you? You agency drivers work such long hours it's a wonder you can stay awake...still, that's the beauty of not having a contract eh? Haven't driven a 7.5 tonne for a while? Well your license is pre-1992 so you're covered...off you go...you've got a lot to get through and you're already too late to be over that side of the bridge so...er...watch the speed limits...