The campaign group Cycling UK has endorsed the London Mayor’s announcement that he will “ensure the most dangerous zero star-rated lorries are removed from our roads”.
Sadiq Khan has pledged that the most dangerous HGVs will not be allowed in the capital by the year 2020, using a ‘star rating’ from 0 to 5 stars to rate construction and other heavy goods vehicles based on the level of vision the driver has directly from the cab.
Transport for London’s (TfL) Direct Vision Standard is a world first, developed in response to the fact that despite making up only 4% of London traffic, lorries are disproportionally involved in London cyclists’ deaths.
Between January 2008 and July 2015, 56 of the 99 cyclists killed in London were involved in incidents with lorries.
Cycling UK responded to TfL consultation ‘Further improving lorry safety in London’, in February 2016 and called for TfL and all 33 London boroughs to express a preference towards direct vision lorries in all future bids for planning applications and publicly-funded contracts.
Furthermore, Cycling UK urged TfL to adopt a road map for the widespread introduction of direct vision lorries which would make their use a contractual requirement by 2020 for TfL and the boroughs, with a commitment to ban lorries which do not meet direct vision standards from London roads by 2025.
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Senior Road Safety and Legal Campaigns Officer said: “Cycling UK is delighted that the Mayor is committed to introducing a road map that will see unsafe lorries off our roads, and safer direct vision lorries the norm. We would now urge TfL and the 33 London boroughs to make safer lorries a contractual preference for all future bids to hasten their uptake.
“Cycling UK called for this back in February through our ‘Safer Lorries’ campaign, and we see today’s announcement as a first step towards removing all unsafe lorries from our roads. We sincerely hope London’s innovative solution to the lorry problem will catch on, and rapidly spread throughout the whole country.”
The TfL website states: “Understanding how much HGV drivers can see from their cab is essential in reducing the risk of collisions. Greater awareness of an HGV driver's direct vision will also lead to an increase in the demand and supply of safer vehicles.
“At TfL, we will work with vehicle manufacturers and invite all HGVs to be modelled and rated against the Direct Vision Standard. This work will help operators and their clients to make informed choices when buying HGVs.”
Earlier this year we reported how a north London waste disposal firm has bought three trucks offering drivers the kind of panoramic view recommended by cycling campaigners.
O’Donovan’s Mercedes Econic vehicles are thought to be the first of their kind used in Britain.
So-called ‘direct vision cabs’ increase the driver’s field of view in front and to the sides of a lorry.
As well as offering a panoramic view, the cube-shaped cabs also feature full-length glass doors to help minimise blind spots.
There are several versions of the £100,000 Econic with O’Donovans to make use of the skip lorry.
Jacqueline O’Donovan, the firm’s managing director, said: “We want to ensure our drivers have the best training and safest vehicles. The Mercedes cabs really are safer.”
O’Donovan also requested a range of additional safety features, including a side scan system, side under run protection, left hand turn audible alarm and conspicuity markings.
Last September London implemented the Safer Lorries Scheme which demands that all HGVs operating in the capital must be fitted with certain safety equipment, including sideguards and improved mirrors. Nevertheless, most campaigners would like to see further improvements.
Add new comment
10 comments
London this, London that.
Why are Cycling UK not fulfilling their remit and pushing for these dangerous lorries to be banned from all UK cities?
@CygnusX1 preempted my response, why just London? Blind spots are vehicle design flaws, and if a design flaw was killing the vehicle occupants there would be no hesitation in doing a mass recall.
That the design flaw is killing people outside the vehicle without correction is a clue to the general prejudice in road safety. We acknowlege driver flaws by protecting the occupants with seatbelts and airbags but do nothing to protect pedestrians and cyclists who are not only more vulnerable to driver stupidity than the occupants, but have their own risk increased by the very same safety measures that protect the occupants because of risk compensation.
Replacing the drivers side airbag with a backward facing spike would to wonders for road safety.
Since when a lorry, a bus or a car is dangerous ?
After the horrible terror attempt in Nice where almost 80+ died, following this logic, all lorries should be banned ?
There are only dangerous drivers and yes, unconscious riders.
I'd argue that objects of great mass designed to move quickly around people are indeed dangerous.
The only time they are not dangerous is when they are not fulfilling their intended purpose, ie. moving.
I'd also argue that people who don't see vehicles as being inherently dangerous are themselves dangerous drivers.
Is that supposed to be rhetorical? Because it's actually a real question, and I'd give a qualified 'yes' as the answer.
Just as even Americans don't allow guns in certain places, so should lorries be banned from certain areas. And the Nice attack is one example of why. They are, like firearms, dangerous weapons.
What places do Americans NOT allow guns? Genuinely curious, after reading of protests when a college campus wanted to ban open carry.
It's all very well pushing them out of London, but what about the rest of the country? Yes, it may also be possible to push for local bye laws in bigger cities but we need a national strategy.
We don't have that sort of government. Power without responsibility is the goal.
Is a dagerous lorry worse than a dangerous lorry?
Oh god yes, of course it is!