Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by MikeF »

Report is now here
Large input from CTC members.
Some organisations and businesses oppose any changes that have an impact
eg Alliance of British Drivers
 Strongly opposes the proposals and is against any local regulation that is not adopted nationally as this complicates operations, particularly for long distance operators


and Superdrug's opposition
Superdrug Stores Plc
 Proposals would only improve visibility of other road users in a limited position, and raises concerns that adding more visual reference points for drivers to check would cause distraction. Consideration should instead be given to educating and licencing cyclists
 HGVs are currently fitted with mirrors which provide already provide the required range of vision


suggesting that everything is fine as it is :shock: and the problem is with cyclists who need educating and licensing :evil:
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Rob Archer
Posts: 297
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 8:25pm
Location: King's Lynn, Norfolk

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by Rob Archer »

Maybe time for cyclists to boycott Superdrug?
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by MikeF »

Of course the proper solution is to provide conditions where HGVs and cycles don't mix and not fit more and more devices to lorries. :wink:
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by Pete Owens »

So with your glib "proper" solution do you envisage London as a place that can be accessed by Lorries and from which cycling (and walking presumably) is prohibited or as a place where cycling and walking would be permitted but lorries are banned.
Phil Fouracre
Posts: 919
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by Phil Fouracre »

I think he was being sarcastic, but, I could be wrong. Do like the idea of boycotting Superdrug though :-)

It still doesn't seem to get through to people/organisations, that, no matter what laws/infrastructure are in place, it really all comes down to driving safely and considerately at all times. You can't regulate for empathy!

Almost a perfect case in point this morning, was browsing the sad old peoples mag (Caravan Club) before binning it, to see a review of a tow car with the strap line, that 'it absolutely flew along the country lanes'! What can I say?
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by Pete Owens »

MikeF wrote:
and Superdrug's opposition
Superdrug Stores Plc
 Proposals would only improve visibility of other road users in a limited position, and raises concerns that adding more visual reference points for drivers to check would cause distraction. Consideration should instead be given to educating and licencing cyclists
 HGVs are currently fitted with mirrors which provide already provide the required range of vision


suggesting that everything is fine as it is :shock: and the problem is with cyclists who need educating and licensing :evil:


Well the first point is beyond parody - that being able to see what is around you is supposedly a distraction. Perhaps they should suggest painting over the windscreen as well.

The second isn't so far removed by the complaints of some cycle campaigners that blindspots are a myth - and all we need to do is to get very angry about drivers who fail to simultaineously and continuously monitor 15 mirrors as well as giving the occasional glance at where they are going.

Suggesting educating cyclists is entirely reasonable - but not as well as not instead. Again this is just the mirror attitude of some cycle campaigners who resent any attempts to educate cyclists to avoid puttingthemselves in situations where there are less likely to be noticed.

There is no magic bullet. If we are interested in improving safety (as opposed to attributing blame) we need to proceed on ALL fronts. Improving direct visibility will always be better than indirect views from mirrors or sensors. Educating cyclists to avoid putting themselves in risky situations will also help. Educating traffic engineers to stop building cycle lanes and paths that lure cyclists into the danger zone would be good. Attaching side guards to prevent cyclists being dragged under the wheels is likely to reduce the severity of some collisions.... the list goes on. To complain at any one measure on the grounds that some other measure is more important is missing the point. None of the measures on its own will solve the problem entirely, but none of them are contradictory.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by MikeF »

Pete Owens wrote:So with your glib "proper" solution do you envisage London as a place that can be accessed by Lorries and from which cycling (and walking presumably) is prohibited or as a place where cycling and walking would be permitted but lorries are banned.
No neither. Perhaps "ideal" would have been a better word.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Mattyfez
Posts: 354
Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 7:24pm

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by Mattyfez »

I guess this is why cycle lanes across junctions are a bad idea.

I'd sooner flow with traffic than risk undertaking.
People seem to be encouraged to undertake via cycle lanes, it's a recipe for disaster.

The only time I'll under take is in stationary traffic at about 3 mph.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by [XAP]Bob »

In terms of separating VRU and lorries I see time sharing as a good option.

Look at the time distribution of the vast majority of these deaths and take the radical step of banning Larry transport during rush hour - when the level of all types of traffic is higher, the space available and speeds are lower...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by mjr »

Pete Owens wrote:Suggesting educating cyclists is entirely reasonable - but not as well as not instead. Again this is just the mirror attitude of some cycle campaigners who resent any attempts to educate cyclists to avoid puttingthemselves in situations where there are less likely to be noticed.

Are there any such cycle campaigners? The usual objection is that such education attempts are abused to distract from actually addressing demonstrated problems, like Superdopey are doing there, or to imply that all the deaths and injuries are the fault of foolish cyclists throwing themselves under motor vehicles driven by perfectly innocent little lambs purer than driven snow.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by mjr »

Mattyfez wrote:I guess this is why cycle lanes across junctions are a bad idea.

Not really - it's more why cycle lanes that dump you in a bad position immediately before a junction are a bad idea. Continuing across junctions may be imperfect but would be better than the current widespread approach of basically giving up as soon as the designers need to address anything difficult or expensive.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Rob Archer
Posts: 297
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 8:25pm
Location: King's Lynn, Norfolk

Re: RE: Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by Rob Archer »

[XAP]Bob wrote:In terms of separating VRU and lorries I see time sharing as a good option.

Look at the time distribution of the vast majority of these deaths and take the radical step of banning Larry transport during rush hour - when the level of all types of traffic is higher, the space available and speeds are lower...

My fear is that, if current calls for HGVs etc to be restricted to certain hours, hauliers will respond with calls to ban cycling on the road at those times. There are plenty of MPs, councillors and council officers who would jump at the chance to restrict cycling. The would simply present it as a 'sensible compromise' and cyclists who object would be seen by the 'great motoring public' as whingers who both want their cake and eat it.

There is no one simple solution. Improving the safety of cyclists around HGVs needs a combination of better lorry design, road design, fairer laws (proportional liability) and education - of both drivers and cyclists.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my GT-S7275R using hovercraft full of eels.
User avatar
Makk11
Posts: 40
Joined: 2 Oct 2016, 1:02am
Location: Hayes, Hillingdon, London
Contact:

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by Makk11 »

Restricting lorries to certain times is an idiotic solution to a very complicated issue of road safety. So we all cycle to school, college or work on LGV free roads. Mum, we had no dinner at school today because the lorry wasn't allowed to deliver it. Well you could have gone to Tesco. I tried that but Tesco has no fresh food because the lorry wasn't allowed to deliver it. Well you could have gone to McDonald's. They had no deliveries this morning either. The construction worker gets on site at 8am sharp ready to work. Where are the bricks and building materials? Oh they'll be here at about lunchtime because the lorry isn't allowed to deliver this early in the morning. All the cyclists will be having lunch by then so the roads will be quieter. The restaurants and shops have no food because the lorries couldn't deliver it so how can the cyclists eat lunch?

We need a much more comprehensive plan to improve road safety for everyone and all road users. Banning lorries at certain times of day will just make London's roads more congested with lorries at other times while businesses can't get deliveries at the times of day they need them.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by MikeF »

Makk11 wrote:Restricting lorries to certain times is an idiotic solution to a very complicated issue of road safety. So we all cycle to school, college or work on LGV free roads.
Did you mean HGV? Most of the deaths in London appear to be with HGV construction vehicles.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Consultation Report on Lorry Safety in London

Post by meic »

LGV is just a more up to date way of saying HGV.
Large goods vehicles in place of heavy goods vehicles.
Life would be too simple if you didnt change the names all the times to keep people on their toes.
Yma o Hyd
Post Reply