London proposal to ban thousands of lorries

[jonny jeez]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DaveReading]

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.