Freight Transport Association says "blanket" London Safer Lorry Scheme proposals not the answer

oozaveared wrote:

Some knee jerk reactions here. I am very much against blanket proposals to crack down on cyclist misbehaviour because only some cyclists misbehave. Likewise cracking down on all car drivers is stupid because it dilutes the effort to find, stop and prosecute the careless and dangerous ones. I think the FTA has a point. There are a few types of vehicle and operator profile that are responsible for the bulk of cyclists deaths. The likely operator profile is that they are probably not in a trade association, operate older, less well maintained vehicles, employ the sort of drivers that the better companies won't touch.
Don't waste resources cracking down on responsible companies employing excellent drivers in well maintained modern trucks. Go after the companies squeezing the last ounce of profit from old trucks employing the numpty drivers on tight schedules with piece work contracts.

The FTA members may be more responsible. That's a different discussion.

They're opposing safety equipment that does save lives and prevent injuries. These requirements affect ALL operators, including the bad ones.

Without these rules, the 'rogue' operators cannot be fined. Good operators will not be fined.

They're ONLY trying to avoid their members paying a few hundred pounds, there's no other rationale here.

jacknorell wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

Some knee jerk reactions here. I am very much against blanket proposals to crack down on cyclist misbehaviour because only some cyclists misbehave. Likewise cracking down on all car drivers is stupid because it dilutes the effort to find, stop and prosecute the careless and dangerous ones. I think the FTA has a point. There are a few types of vehicle and operator profile that are responsible for the bulk of cyclists deaths. The likely operator profile is that they are probably not in a trade association, operate older, less well maintained vehicles, employ the sort of drivers that the better companies won't touch.
Don't waste resources cracking down on responsible companies employing excellent drivers in well maintained modern trucks. Go after the companies squeezing the last ounce of profit from old trucks employing the numpty drivers on tight schedules with piece work contracts.

The FTA members may be more responsible. That's a different discussion.

They're opposing safety equipment that does save lives and prevent injuries. These requirements affect ALL operators, including the bad ones.

Without these rules, the 'rogue' operators cannot be fined. Good operators will not be fined.

They're ONLY trying to avoid their members paying a few hundred pounds, there's no other rationale here.

I don't entirely disagree but the point with blanket bans and requirements is that politicians like them. They appear to be doing something that good operators will comply with but rogue ones won't. That's not a problem in itself if you intend to allocate resources to policing the new requirements. But they won't because they already don't allocate enough resources or apply enough determination to cracking down on the dangerous and rogue operators that already exist.

It's just a cheap way for politicians to appear to be doing something without it costing them/us anything. I expect that the FTA would be delighted if the police, VOSA, DSA, HMRC actually did crack down on the bad companies operating the unsafe lorries with cavailier drivers because they suffer from being undercut by the cowboys. But if the proposal means they have their costs put up for the already compliant and safe companies and drivers and the cowboy operators just ignore those requirements as they already do, then it's worse than pointless.

Let's start by enforcing the laws and standards we already have properly. After that (which will see a lot of the chancers and cowboys removed from the roads) we can look at improving the standards and enforcing them.

FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:

One reason the FTA are going down this route is in part a way of helping their members avoid paying for these measures, also how can you regulate the "bad" companies when all they will do is rebrand themselves and carry on regardless.

The only sensible way is a blanket ban on lorries without the relevant safety measures.

Well, confiscation of the vehicles would be pretty effective...

alexb wrote:

Yup, because finally the mayor has woken up to the realisation that the industry can't self-regulate and now they're not happy.

+1

If the FTA actually started to regulate its members, rather than acting like a trades union and blaming everyone else, then perhaps they would having something to say worth listening to.