London Cycling Commissioner brands rush hour lorry ban debate a ‘distraction’

If 2000 lives were being lost in airplane or train accidents per year there'd be outcry - companies prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, people rioting at the disgrace of it all. But driving - oh no, that's just "one of those things". - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/171728-london-cycling-commissioner-brands-ru...

Thank you, excellent point. So the obvious question is why are privatised transportation options such as ferries, rail networks and aviation so heavily regulated to ensure public safety whilst the government regulated transport option pretty much knowingly sacrifice your life and no-one is held to account for it?!

To my simple mind this is a gigantic breach of your basic right to live without undue or unreasonable fear of being maimed or killed in an arbitrary manner.

IF and only IF government could demonstrate they were taking all and every reasonable step to minimise these figures could they argue against culpability of some description but I think we'd all agree we couldn't be much further from a society that trivialises road violence.

Now...how do we collectively challenge this reckless complacency as a vulnerable group and force government to take the same aproach as we expect from P&O, Virgin Trains and British Airways?

The current situation is not ok and we have to find a way to force change, I for one am not cool with being executed simply because Tesco need orange juice on their shelves.

I'd be a little wary of banning certain traffic at certain times as being any sort of long term answer. After all, bicycles are just a certain class of traffic.

We all acknowledge loss of life will continue whilst lorry design stays focused on maximising haulage space rather than a cab with better sight lines.

My question is how come government can recognise this but drag heels to force change? We know the road haulage industry and motor manufacturers have government under their thumb.

Scenario - My factory is dangerous and everyone tells me so, I acknowledge it publicly and the health and safety executive are also aware.

I refuse to change anything at all as its inconvenient and will cost me money, instead promising to make changes in ten years or so.

People continue to die, needlessly and in pretty horrific ways. I'm guilty of corporate manslaughter each and every time. 

So, why is no-one in government responsible when death of the public is recognised? How is it any different if David Cameron himself sat and randomly picked out say fifty people, had them brought to Trafalgar Square then shot each of them in the head?

Seems turning a blind eye makes the deaths just fine but doing it in Trafalgar Square isn't. So, why is this?

instead of spending money on infrastructure or forcing lorry operators to buy new vehicles?

why not spend some money tasking the Police force to actively enforce the law, by checking all heavy goods vehicles and construction vehicles operating in London?

From what I have read about the results of previous Police operations, large numbers of these vehicles have been found to be defective. 

By expanding these operations, surely more defective vehicles can  be taken off the roads?

Hitting commerical operators in the pocket by heavy fines or vehicle confisciation will surely change their behaviour very quickly, compared to vague political sentiments about rush hour bans or long term infrastructure projects?

Big reductions in deaths of cyclists and pedestrians where HGV restrictions are put in place. Proven in a number of cities. Noteable examples being Paris and Dublin. Yes, these initiatives were matched with improved cycle infrastructure but it can hardly be dismissed as a distraction.

I've cycled in rush hour in Paris a couple of times. Never felt unsafe once despite sticking to the roads right from the Ville de Paris through to the outskirts.

think talking about "the last mile" of deliveries is a distraction, needs action but doesn't have to be rolled into the issue of safety 

suspect from reading news reports that majority of deaths in London involving sommercial vehicles are with vehicles involved in the construction industry and to suggest that moving their operations outside of peak travel times will endanger older pedestrians is at  the minimum disingenous if not decietful

we'd all love to see better designed trucks on the road but the timescale is long term 

what's wrong with looking at the current enforcement framework for commercial vehicles, operators and driving and ensuring it actually works - the reason it doesn't work is because it dates from the 1930's and is basically a rubber stamping exercise - it should come under modern Health and Safety legislation and the "pay by the load" and "just in time" "sub sub contract to the cheapest"  methodology of the construction industry needs challenging by the HSE

and Gilligan is right on one thing - banning all commercial vehicles in rush hour will probably result in pressure from constuction co's / supermarkets / other retail / to have existing restricted delivery hours restrictions torn up  - pity the poor residents who will lose their often hard fought right to undisturbed sleep

if not careful what we'll end up with is some sort of ban on commercial vehciles in peak hours with 99% excepted and a removal of delivery hours restrictions - once again vehicle operators will be the only ones happy 

We review the ways in which lorry danger can be reduced, including the rush hour (actually, it's the morning rush hour) ban put forward by LCC and now agreed by the GLA here http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/07/21/what-transport-for-london-needs-to-do-for-....

The a.m. ban is about the least effective measure - it's largely muck shifting the problem to people walking/cycling at other times. But it could work if exemptions were made for HGVs with direct vision or retro-fitted devices to make them less of a danger to cyclists and - don't forget - pedestrians.

Quote:

The drivers need to join a union and strike for fair and safe wages then. If not, then there's nothing that can be done. If employees eschew collective action then while I might have sympathy for them, I'm not willing to pay the price for them. 

IIf only that were possible, but it's not in the current climate. At the moment, there is no disincentive for companies using the cheapest drivers/vehicles they can get and paying them per load. A lot of the fatalities have been down to construction lorries. How about if a company (or one of their subcontractors) is involved in a serious incident then they have to stop work until it's investigated. 

If work on the latest city phallus had to come to a halt if one of their drivers was involved in a KSI then you'd soon see a shift in attitudes.  The culture of "use the cheapest" doesn't benefit the drivers and it certainly doesn't benefit the people who share the roads with them.

Having dangerous vehicles/drivers not on the roads at certain times of day is not a solution.

Gilligan is right.

In the long term, a rush hour lorry ban may not be the ideal solution, however Andrew Gilligan avers to the fact that lorry design must be changed to make it easier for lorry drivers to see cyclists. This is a clear statement that there is an issue with lorry drivers seeing cyclists. This being true, how many cyclists travelling to work is Andrew Gilligan prepared to sacrifice until the current crop of lorries are replaced with safer lorries? The obvious answer is that this number must be zero. I venture to suggest that the majority of weekday cycle journeys are to and from work. I further venture to suggest that it is conceded that our cycle infrastructure is not fit for purpose (otherwise why are we spending money improving it?). Thus to protect life it makes complete sense (however inconvenient) by eliminating the risk to it. This means either banning cycling during the rush hour or banning inappropriate lorries (and other such vehicles) at times when cyclists are using the roads in their thousands. Not rocket science. Who saves one life saves the world entire.

Makes sense to me. Tax the fuck out of the hauliers and spend the money on upgrading infrastructure: green wave cycle ways a la Cophenhagen etc.

I'm inclined to agree with Gilligan based on the numbers and like many cyclists I also don't limit my cycling to just rush hour anyway. Creating safer cycle routes, mandating safer lorries and fixing air quality would save vastly more lives.