- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Tipper truck 2 (CC licensed by kenjonbro)London to ban HGVs without cyclist safety equipment as Safer Lorry Scheme comes into force this September
Lorries of more than 3.5 tonnes not fitted with side guards and mirrors that give the driver the best view possible of cyclists and pedestrians around their vehicle will be banned from the London’s streets when the capital’s Safer Lorry Scheme comes into force this September. TfL made the announcement yesterday following a public consultation in which 90 per cent of respondents were in favour of the scheme.
The scheme is a further ratcheting up of measures by TfL and Mayor Boris Johnson to do something about the number of cyclists and pedestrians being killed and seriously injured on London’s streets by heavy goods vehicles - and construction lorries in particular.
Last year the Mayor and TfL committed to a six point road safety plan which included cutting death and serious injuries on London's roads by 40 per cent by 2020 and to cutting deaths and serious injuries amongst vulnerable road users: pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists, who together make up 80 per cent of those killed or seriously injured on the capital's streets.
In 2013 nine of the 14 cyclists killed in Greater London died in collisions with lorries, and lorries have historically accounted for a disproportionate number of cycling and pedestrian casualties for their overall number on the road. Earlier this week a cyclist was killed in Homerton High Street in a collision with a left turning tipper truck.
While lorries are disproportionately more dangerous than other vehicles, construction lorries are disproportionately more dangerous than any other type of lorry. So while the statement announcing the new scheme doesn’t explicitly say so, these new measures will particularly target construction lorries such as tipper trucks and skip lorries.
That’s because most heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) are already required to fit side guards - lorries involved in the construction industry are exempt from that requirement. All older HGVs including older construction lorries are also exempt from the requirement to fit extended view mirrors - new lorries already have to have them fitted.
Both the Mayor and TfL have come in for heavy criticism from cyclists and safety campaigners for encouraging more people to cycle in the capital without providing adequate infrastructure for them to do so safely.
Last year saw record numbers of cyclists on the capital’s streets and that growth shows no signs of stopping. At the same time a number of major infrastructure projects are also likely to lead to a dramatic rise in the amount of construction traffic using those same streets in the coming years.
Following a series of deaths the Mayor and TfL have moved to make the city’s streets safer for cyclists by announcing plans to reconfigure 33 of the capital’s most dangerous junctions, providing a network of Quietways, and more segregated cycle routes. Last week the Mayor gave the go-ahead for two largely segregated Cycle Superhighways that will bisect London, a move this week rubber stamped by the TfL board.
At the same time there has also been a renewed focus on lorry safety. One early sign of this was the Mayor’s reversal of his decision to disband the Metropolitan Police’s specialist lorry safety unit and the subsequent creation of the Industrial HGV Taskforce funded by TfL and the Department for Transport (DfT) and formed of the Metropolitan Police Service, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the City of London Police.
The Safer Lorry Scheme will cover every road in all of Greater London’s 32 boroughs and teh City of London, except for motorways, and will come into force on 1 September, as soon as the 600 warning signs on roads leading into the Safer Lorry Zone are in place.
TfL say the scheme will be permanently in force 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It will be enforced by the police the DVSA and the joint TfL and DfT-funded Industrial HGV Taskforce (IHTF).
The maximum fine for each breach of the ban will be £1,000 - on the assumption that failure to fit side guards and the appropriate mirrors will be regarded as separate breaches of the ban this means operators could face fines of up to £3,000 for one vehicle.
As well as being fined, operators breaching the ban will also be referred for consideration to the relevant Traffic Commissioner, who is responsible for the licensing and regulation of HGV operators.
Commenting on the decision to implement the scheme, Mr Johnson, said: “Improving the safety of London’s roads is a top priority. We know that a large number of cyclist deaths and serious injuries involve a relatively small number of trucks and lorries that are not fitted with basic safety equipment.
Such vehicles are not welcome in the capital and the Safer Lorry Scheme will see them effectively banned from our streets. The lives of thousands of cyclists and pedestrians will be much safer as a result and I urge all operators of HGVs to get on board and make it a success.”
While the Safer Lorry Scheme undoubtedly represents a major step forward when it comes to the safety of cyclists and other vulnerable road users on London's roads, the Mayor and TfL will still have some work to do if they are to meet their ambitious target for reducing the most serious casualties by 2020.
Attention is now likely to focus on London's buses which TfL's own figures last year revealed to be even more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians - per kilometre travelled - than heavy good vehicles.
road.cc's founder and first editor, nowadays to be found riding a spreadsheet. Tony's journey in cycling media started in 1997 as production editor and then deputy editor of Total Bike, acting editor of Total Mountain Bike and then seven years as editor of Cycling Plus. He launched his first cycling website - the Cycling Plus Forum at the turn of the century. In 2006 he left C+ to head up the launch team for Bike Radar which he edited until 2008, when he co-launched the multi-award winning road.cc - finally handing on the reins in 2021 to Jack Sexty. His favourite ride is his ‘commute’ - which he does most days inc weekends and he’s been cycle-commuting since 1994. His favourite bikes are titanium and have disc brakes, though he'd like to own a carbon bike one day.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 5 min 37 sec ago
Except that they are demonstrably NOT (in this sample size of one, anyway). Otherwise nobody would ever get more points, once they'd been given...
- brooksby 8 min 59 sec ago
Any resident who talks about "jumped-up" cyclists has by doing so revealed their inherent bias that cyclists are some form of lower order getting...
- Rendel Harris 32 min 44 sec ago
Aw, poor Tassie! To add insult to injury you classed ACT, with a lower population, as a state, which it isn't!
- Rendel Harris 36 min 31 sec ago
n+3 where n=current number of points. Honestly, it's like someone constantly forgiving a philandering partner, "No this time he really means it...
- hawkinspeter 7 hours 3 min ago
"Acting like", not necessarily "built like". However, I don't think leaf springs work under tension and instead require compression which isn't how...
- David9694 9 hours 30 min ago
BAM!
- IanGlasgow 10 hours 6 min ago
"Polartec Power Shield RPM fabric – which has a 10,000mm hydro head to keep wet weather out, and an industry-leading breathability spec of 30,000g...
- mdavidford 11 hours 9 min ago
Oxfordshire councils are quite capable of letting you down too!...
- PenLaw 12 hours 15 min ago
I guess Morrissey could claim it.
- wtjs 12 hours 41 min ago
I do see a lot of delivery riders (on illegal e-motorbikes) with their faces covered...
Add new comment
27 comments
I see the value in this scheme and the changes are certainly possitive but I can't help feeling that as a solution to the danger posed by HGVs it has been watered down to a point where it will make little real difference; I hope that I'm wrong about this.
The presence of lorries on London's streets at all times of day with little restriction on their use seems to be the real problem and there is no political will to address this. The practice of rewarding drivers for carrying more loads is also an issue in my view (this extends to couriers etc. too).
We need to see fewer lorries and this can be achieved through greater restrictions on thier use and through the planning process for large construction projects where an insistance on the use of rail could be built into planning permissions.
Well done Boris! It's good to see a politician who is himself a regular cyclist and who is taking positive steps to make cycling in London safer.
Go one further and demand Pedestrian, Vehicle and Cyclist colision avoidance systems for all vehicles over 2T.
Can't help but agree with the FTA's comment. Politically it's pretty easy and safe to require more safety equipment and so on. But without enforcement it's simply costing responsible companies more without reducing the risk posed by irresponsible ones. Spending money on both enforcement of rules and training for the nut behind the wheel is the solution, but risks offending large and powerful interest groups (TfL and other driver unions) and therefore no-one will do it.
Lorry driver yesterday made sure there was no chance of cyclists going up the side when he sounded the loud "lorry turning left" speaker twice, he also pulled up very slowely and close to the kerb so no cyclists could sneak up the side of his stationary truck. Well done to him.
Despite this, a girl on a boris bike went up the side of it just before it was about to move off. I confronted her, she said "its ok, it wasn't turning", I explained that if she had slipped or got caught on the lorry when it pulled away, she would be toast.
We still have a problem with casual cyclists taking risks, (disproportionately women I'm sorry to say) going up the side of lorries thinking being an inch from the kerb is the norm!!!
For a bumbling idiot Boris certainly looks like delivering a safer london for cyclists.
Hopefully we keep seeing this progress and it spreads elsewhere
He is not a bumbling idiot, and thinking so means youve fallen for it.
I am by no means a fan (I despise the guy) but know that what he is doing is nothing more than trying to create a legacy so when he takes leadership of the Tory party, he can make claims about 'saving' London by getting it cycling.
ScaniaBiker: And how many cyclists, or people (other than the rider) do scooters kill each year?
Paul J, Have no idea, not many I'm quessing.
That's not my point. It's down to policing as most road users obey the laws but some don't and that includes cyclists and drivers. It's my opinion that a huge problem is motorbikes and making more laws will not change the minority that break them. Trucks will always case more deaths, it's basic physics, big truck verses smaller road user never ends up good, sad reality. We need more policing on the laws we have not more laws to break.
The constant I see every day in London is motorcyclists completely ignoring the law concerning the ASL (bicycle box) and driving into it after the traffic light has changed to red, trying to force their way into the box when there are cyclists already waiting in it, or obstructing access to the bicycle box for cyclists, by parking at an angle across the entrance.
The "law" is very clear about motorbikes and the ASL, however there seems to be no education of drivers / motorcyclists, and very little active enforcement even during "PR" campaigns by the Met.
From the Met. Police website
"Myth: Motorbikes are allowed in the ASL. Not true. The law applies to motorbikes and scooters, too."
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Advanced-Stop-Lines/1400018009433/1...
I see a lot of poor riding on powered two wheelers, young lads on twist and go scooters in particular. But DfT data shows that 65% of the crashes powered two wheeler riders are involved in the UK, are not the fault of the rider.
It all comes down to effective enforcement by the Police?
Otherwise, like other "bans", it sounds great on the statue books but means very little in reality.
At a time when Police are underfunded, overstretched and diverted to "terrorism" duties, road traffic policing is a very thin blue line.
Apart from the occasional "PR" exercises where you see Police at road junctions for a day:
Several London Borough have 20mph speed limits, not enforced
Its a criminal offence to drive using a hand held cell phone, not enforced
Its a criminal offence to drive into the ASL after the red light, not enforced
Its a criminal offence to drive whilst banned, or without insurance, not enforced
Stay safe out there...
"Attention is now likely to focus on London's buses" well I think every councils attention should fall on bus companies and pressure them to ensure drivers are educated and well trained when it comes to other road users. I have more narrow escapes due to buses, especially doing school runs, than I have with HGV's. It might be down to unrealistic timetables, ignorant ill trained drivers or the fact that you can see some of them on their phones or reading a paper while driving!
Great to see that they're looking at issues but this is a bit of bull. Due to congestion charges in London and emission restrictions, older trucks are not allowed in the City and newer trucks have these issues already covered by EU regulations. The older of these construction trucks still used in London are minimal and so the efforts sould be focused elsewhere. As a truck driver who goes into London every week, I agree with earlier comments, police current rules. My personal opinion is that motorbikes, mainly scooters are a huge concern on London roads and seem to flout the laws more than any other users. Police the laws we have.
But do you know how many old vehicles are still travelling around Greater London? The LEZ only covers the inner zones, Greater London, which these changes will cover is a much, much bigger area.
Personally, I find most "proper" bikers are very safety conscious, even if they are a bit fuzzy about speed limits. I really don't like to discriminate, but the scooter boys on L plates can be a bit... random. I'm not sure I'd actually call them dangerous though. A scooter can never do the damage that a car can.
I live in Hull, that venerable city up north, awarded city of culture 2017. I am not anti London, but I do feel annoyed by the amount of money that is invested, and attention it gets.
If anything that is done in London is genuinely rolled out across the rest of the UK, then yes, go for it please. Unfortunately this has rarely been the case.
That is not the fault of the people who live and work in London though, and I would rather measures were put in place that kept people safe, wherever that is.
We really shouldn't be bitching at each other, stop creating regionalisation and band together. As cyclists who enjoy the persuit, we should be understanding and supportive of any cyclist anywhere.
All this baiting and bitching gets us nowehere, and takes the focus away from the real issues.
Between now and September, based on previous years, there will probably be around 6-8 cyclists killed by HGVs.
Why delay this implementation?
Surely the cost of a single investigation, coroner's enquiry and court case is going to be more than simply giving away the funds to those operators planning to work in London who don't currently have this equipment fitted?
If this saves lives it should be done now.
The FTA's comment is quite reasonable actually:
The Freight Transport Association (FTA) has responded to the Transport for London (TfL) announcement today that their Safer Lorry Scheme, which will require sideguards and additional mirrors on almost all HGVs operating in the capital, will go live on 1 September 2015.
In its assessment of the final detail of the Scheme - FTA has stated that compliance costs to industry have been minimised by TfL's sensible approach to its implementation, but still considers that this has not necessarily been the best way of improving cyclist safety – and that could possibly be better spent on increased enforcement against those not complying with safety requirements.
FTA's Head of Policy for London Natalie Chapman commented:
“FTA is pleased to see that the necessary exemptions and concessions for the vehicles for which this equipment is either not possible or not legal have been included within the requirements of the London Safer Lorry Scheme. However, in principle we believe that this kind of blunt regulatory tool is not the best way to improve cyclist safety. We still think that the money and effort spent on this scheme would have been better spent on increased enforcement against the small proportion of lorries that don't comply with existing regulations."
For the avoidance of doubt - I'm not saying don't do it in London because it isn't being done everywhere - it should be a spur to the whole country to do it.
Not holding my breath though... maybe the New Forest National Park will be the last hold out for unsafe lorries?
It's not so much against London cyclists, it's London as a whole. I personally think the whole country would be better off without it, just generally. I've not yet decided what would be best, but I've narrowed it down to carpet bombing or building the worlds largest steam roller and flattening it.
I take you're remarks with the humour that was clearly intended! If you could take out the elephant and castle first, that would be great.
However, the person that asked me yesterday whether I had any "cabbies to behead", I don't. That was just offensive, and a remark that anyone that lives in London would find disgusting.
No problem with a bit of banter, but if anyone resorts to something like that again I'd hope road.cc would take a view on the matter.
I do enjoy these pots shots by a few on here against us London cyclists.
What exactly is the complaint, we're terrible people because we haven't sat on our hands and ignored the issue? These small successes have taken years to achieve, and there are plenty of campaigners in London who will happily give their time to help other regions or cities that are trying to do the same thing. And there are other success stories around the country anyway.
Some of it seems to be motivated by nothing more than a dislike of Londoners. I treat that with the same regard as I would someone on here saying they don't like black people, or asians. If you're discriminating against us because of where we live, you're the one with the problem.
Sad indictment on this country when this only applies to one city. Are London cyclists any more (or less) important than one in Glasgow, Belfast, Little Frumpington-on-the-Marsh, etc?
The issue of tipper truck safety is particularly acute in London where the city is undergoing rapid development and with construction sites for new homes, offices or infrastructure on just about every street corner. No other UK city is as big, and only a very few are growing as fast. Nowhere else in the UK sees such a volume of traffic to and from construction sites. It isn't that cyclists in London are more important, but they do face challenges not seen by those elsewhere.
Seeing London Mayor and Boroughs of London only have jurisdiction over London, to try and implement this scheme anywhere else would be usurping those authorities and would give rise to greater (and more valid) complaints than yours.
Maybe you should be questioning the authorities local to those areas as to why they think pedestrian and cyclists lives are thought of less than in London.
It's been a good week.
Careful now, you wouldn't want anyone thinking you're one of those militant extreme London cyclists. I know the haulage industry has resisted this for years, but at least they've been honest enough to do so on the most part on the grounds of cost and practicality.
Good. I'll volunteer a few weekends to put up signs if it makes things move faster!