HGVs in towns and cities

[zimzum42]

why should we accept that they are places of death?

it does make my ride slightly more exciting

 

[BentMikey]

He is indeed a bit mental/ I'm still waiting to hear a suggestion from him as to how all these goods are to be transported once his HGV ban is imposed, and how buildings are going to get built in town centres when we have to bring the bricks in with wheelbarrows, etc etc

You and Lee are jumping to wild and extreme conclusions about Dondare's posts not warranted by what he actually wrote, IMO.

 

[BentMikey]

hmm, point taken. But in posting that I was actually responding to dondares statment that cyclists have no responsibility to other road users. It is actually the law but some people are to ignorant/stupid to understand and think that the onus is on the driver.

That's not what Dondare said. He said the most responsibility and care on the roads must be taken by those who bring the most danger to others. That would be motor vehicle drivers, and even more so HGV drivers.

One example might be using a phone whilst driving. You very rarely see HGV drivers on the phone, perhaps mostly because that offence isn't taken nearly as lightly as when a car driver does it.

 

[Origamist]

ROSPA: Cyclists and Lorries:

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/cycling/info/cyclists_and_lorries_factsheet_0206.pdf

 

[zimzum42]

Our towns were built before any kind of engine was invented, sometimes by people with wheelbarrows.
Mass transportation existed in England and throughout the British Empire without it relying on HGVs or LGVs.
Technology allows transport to happen one way or another, I'm not suggesting replacing all HGVs with wheelbarrows but that's hardly the only option. As I keep on pointing out, buses do not pose the same dangers to cyclists (or road fixtures) as lorries because the cabs are designed so that the drivers can actually see where they're going. Lorries could be designed the same way but they're not.
This country is not at war. The roads are not subject to dangerous uncontrollable natural forces. They are designed by people to allow safe movement of people and goods with laws to mitigate any risks that might arise; why should we accept that they are places of death?

I'd agree with you that future designs ought to take this stuff into consideration, but I also have a feeling that you would expect all non-compliant trucks to be taken off the roads too, which would consign a load of perfectly good trucks to the third world or scrap.
And don;t go down the route of suggesting that 40foot trailers should unload at the edge of cities and load into lots of small vans, the cost would be prohibitive

 

[Rhythm Thief]

And don;t go down the route of suggesting that 40foot trailers should unload at the edge of cities and load into lots of small vans, the cost would be prohibitive

And we've already covered how many vans it would take to load the contents of one 40 footer. Besides, if many small vehicles are better than one large one, how come the government is trying so hard to get us out of our cars and onto buses?

 

[dondare]

That's not what Dondare said. He said the most responsibility and care on the roads must be taken by those who bring the most danger to others. That would be motor vehicle drivers, and even more so HGV drivers.

One example might be using a phone whilst driving. You very rarely see HGV drivers on the phone, perhaps mostly because that offence isn't taken nearly as lightly as when a car driver does it.

You need to go and read his post again, he did not say this at all.

That certainly is one of the points I keep making. I think that you need to read my posts again if you're missing it.
Some other points are that:
The roads are not intended or designed to be dangerous and the laws regulating traffic are intended to reduce danger, not to allow for it;
cyclists do not have to pass a test to show competence;
most HGVs have such a restricted view from the cab that they cannot be used safely in town whereas similar-sized buses have a better designed cab and can be.

 

[dondare]

I'd agree with you that future designs ought to take this stuff into consideration, but I also have a feeling that you would expect all non-compliant trucks to be taken off the roads too, which would consign a load of perfectly good trucks to the third world or scrap.
And don;t go down the route of suggesting that 40foot trailers should unload at the edge of cities and load into lots of small vans, the cost would be prohibitive

Current designs of lorry could be retrofitted with glass doors.

I'd rather see freight moved by rail. Keep it off the motorways and main roads altogether.

 

[zimzum42]

yeah, cos it's such a danger to cyclists there!

So now you are OK with trucks in the city, but you don't want them on motorways and A-roads?

You're not making much sense now....

Moving freight by rail is a good idea, but it would doubtless mean we would either need to build more lines, or regular services would be disrupted

 

[dondare]

Another point that I make from time to time is that cyclists are not the only victims of road accidents. Making roads safer benefits everyone.
HGVs on motorways are a bloody nuisance. Why do they always have to try to overtake eachother on inclines? One going at 45mph, one going at 45.05mph and two lanes blocked! And all that spray they throw up in the wet, and the way they veer about when the driver is fiddling about in his cab with God knows what, and why do they just change lanes without indicating forcing the cars behind to slam the brakes on?! Freight should be moved long distances by rail and in some cases canal, not the roads.
As far as building more railways is concerned, they should never have been ripped up in the first place. Bloody Beeching with his bloody shares in bloody Tarmac.
Freight could be moved at off-peak times, but it would mean real investment in track and rolling stock &c.

 

[zimzum42]

The problem isn't HGVs, it's the restrictions on their top speed that's the problem. They are all limited to 56mph or something like that. get rid of that and they won;t take so long to overtake each other

As for veering around, well, you try to control a 40ton truck while trying to wrap up your latest rape victim in a roll of carpet.....

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Another point that I make from time to time is that cyclists are not the only victims of road accidents. Making roads safer benefits everyone.
HGVs on motorways are a bloody nuisance. Why do they always have to try to overtake eachother on inclines? One going at 45mph, one going at 45.05mph and two lanes blocked! And all that spray they throw up in the wet, and the way they veer about when the driver is fiddling about in his cab with God knows what, and why do they just change lanes without indicating forcing the cars behind to slam the brakes on?! Freight should be moved long distances by rail and in some cases canal, not the roads.
As far as building more railways is concerned, they should never have been ripped up in the first place. Bloody Beeching with his bloody shares in bloody Tarmac.
Freight could be moved at off-peak times, but it would mean real investment in track and rolling stock &c.

Now you're degenerating into a rant (and possibly showing your true agenda!). I grant you that not all lorry drivers are angels, but it's perfectly possible to drive an artic courteously and carefully, and many (me included) do just that. The spray lorries throw up from the road is hardly the driver's fault ... And I have to say, as someone who drives mostly in the small hours of the morning when the only things on the road are other lorries, it's cars that create more traffic chaos and nuisance, in my experience.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

There's some people here who have some trouble with basic morality (which is rather more fundamental than law). Here's how it works: the more power and potential to harm you have, the more responsibility you have to those more vulnerable than yourself. This applies at all levels (cyclists have those responsibilities to pedestrians or the disabled, for example; HGV drivers have rather larger responsibilities). This doesn't exclude other responsibilities we all have (in law and in common sense), however the 'duty of care', to preserve life, protect the weak etc., is fundamental. And, I am afraid, it doesn't matter how essential anyone or any activity is to the economy - that is secondary to this fundamental moral duty.

(This has a number of interesting implications, BTW, which are by no means 'anti-HGV' not least of which is that it makes sense for lorry drivers to be paid to reflect this responsibility...)

In terms of policy - and this has no necessary connection to the above - I favour restricting HGVs in city centres, and the restoration of train lines and 'break bulk' centres where HGVs can transfer goods to smaller vehicles for local delivery. However, more fundamental is the ridiculous centralised 'just-in-time' distribution systems we now have, where goods can be moved twice the distance of the entire country from ports to distributions centres to local selling points. For food especially, a lot of this is entirely unecessary - it merely serves the increasingly monopolistic positions of particular firms, and works against local producers. But there's a long history and very complicated politics here too...

 

[dondare]

Now you're degenerating into a rant (and possibly showing your true agenda!). I grant you that not all lorry drivers are angels, but it's perfectly possible to drive an artic courteously and carefully, and many (me included) do just that. The spray lorries throw up from the road is hardly the driver's fault ... And I have to say, as someone who drives mostly in the small hours of the morning when the only things on the road are other lorries, it's cars that create more traffic chaos and nuisance, in my experience.

Not blaming the driver for the properties of the vehicle or for the policies of Governments.

 

[dodgy]

Reading some of the anti-HGV rhetoric on here reminds of the inconsistent and disjointed anti-cyclist bollocks you read on car forums.