- 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
news
HGV skip lorry cordoned off at the scene of a cyclist s death.jpgFreight Transport Association: Banning HGVs during peak hours is not the answer to cyclist deaths
A ban on HGVs in cities during peak hours is not the answer when it comes to protecting cyclists, the Freight Transport Association has said.
Although the organisation concedes that more needs to be done to improve cycling safety, it says that the idea, already in place in cities like Paris and Dublin, is unworkable, and would affect commerce and supply in towns and cities.
Christopher Snelling, FTA’s Head of Urban Logistics Policy said: “FTA believes that the idea of banning HGVs from a city like London in peak hours is naive and not commercially viable. “It would mean massive economic implications for the shops, businesses and residents of the capital.
“It would also create new safety issues as one lorry is replaced by about 8 – not to mention the increased congestion and air pollution that would result.
“Paris only restricts the largest trucks, above about 28 tonnes gross weight. Very few trucks of this size operate on London’s roads because there is already a long-standing ban on articulated vehicles in the central area.”
He added that the ban would just lead to a deluge effect of lorries just before and after the hours of the ban, and said that the supply of fresh and baked goods to cities would be affected at exactly the time shops and bakeries would need them, and more crucially medical and hospitality supplies would be affected too.
He said: “Paris also exempts a long list of vehicles, including all construction traffic – the vehicles that are most represented in recent cycling fatalities. The Dublin scheme is not a ban at all, as any vehicle of any size can move about and deliver or collect anything anywhere at any time, as long as they pay a €10 fee.”
“It is too simplistic to cite Paris and Dublin as examples of where HGV bans work as in practice very few vehicles are denied access to the city centres that need to be there.
“The reality is that the city authorities recognise that goods deliveries are essential to the efficient functioning of the city and permit them round-the-clock access.”
The Mayor of London Boris Johnson told BBC London 94.9 he was not convinced by the argument for a peak hours ban this week, but admitted there needed to be a "much bigger conversation about HGVs".
He said imposing a peak-time ban risked damaging London companies and creating a "serious influx as soon as the ban is over", and added that he was "by no means satisfied" the idea was the solution, although he said “we are not dismissing any suggestion."
But Chris Boardman, British Cycling's policy adviser, is pushing for the idea to be tested.
In an open letter to the mayor he said he would be breaking a promise not to look at ways of banning HGVs.
He said: "When I rode alongside you to help you launch your vision for cycling in March this year, you made a verbal promise to look at the successful experiences of Paris and many other cities in restricting the movements of heavy vehicles during peak hours.
"London has an opportunity to emulate and surpass Paris and to lead the way for the other ambitious cycling cities across Britain.
"Let's not waste this opportunity to do something now."
The FTA is now lobbying against the idea, with Snelling saying that other avenues should be explored first.
He said: “One death is too many and we must all do more to improve safety – cyclists, public authorities, public transport and HGV drivers and operators included.
“But banning HGVs is a simplistic response with massive economic and transport impacts and an un-quantified safety case. Any measures taken should be intelligent, targeted and evidence based if we are to improve safety whilst allowing our cities to function.”
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 39 min 40 sec ago
They should embrace that...
- Rich_cb 48 min 58 sec ago
The mistake is to focus on the US....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 41 sec ago
I mean it seems silly to complain in detail when we're firmly in the territory in the UK of "you will have to live with this the rest of your life ...
- Bigfoz 2 hours 19 min ago
Well, according to Endura's website, they make nothing that fits me. (which is interesting because my club skin suit, from Endura, is both too big ...
- thax1 2 hours 47 min ago
Aww, Northwave's marketing team eh? Bless 'em....
- eburtthebike 3 hours 32 min ago
I thought students were supposed to be intelligent?
- whosatthewheel 3 hours 42 min ago
She will serve "no more than a half", so 3 years and 4 months and she is walking free. And with the practically non-existent road policing it's...
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 12 min ago
Just the other day, Mrs HawkinsPeter remarked that our road seemed a lot quieter without all the rat-running and there's notably more traffic...
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 27 min ago
I was wondering if other countries used some kind of anti-copying technology. One type would be to use something like an RFID chip embedded into...
- slc 6 hours 34 min ago
Doubly galling when, as has been pointed out here in the past, a binary search would efficiently reveal the time of theft. Triply galling when I...
Add new comment
50 comments
As an hgv driver, I sometimes think the Freight Transport Association are their own worst enemy, but in this case they are right.
From experience, I know that roads can become extremely dangerous in the "rush" when a restriction starts and ends. Restrictions make delivery schedules so tight that corners are cut. And, for those on "pay per load", any further restrictions will just make things even more, er, competitive.
A better alternative, is to remove the cause of all this desperate rushing around by lifting hgv restrictions altogether so that drivers can concentrate on their surroundings, as opposed to the clock.
Frankly, Mr Boardman's lorry ban idea is just as ill judged as the calls for complusory helmets from some of our top cyclists.
Agree. Good post. Those agreeing with the ban don't appear to have a good grasp of the realities. No one owns the roads. In order to meet the demands of urban living I'm not sure you can do without large vehicles. The reason why Paris and Dublin are held out as examples is that they are capital cities. If you want to make comparatives you need to have something approaching a similar size. Paris is similar to London and I'm not sure that there is an effective ban there. Paris is also not undergoing the same level of change as London at present. Sensibly they made some good infrastructure changes back in the nineteenth century. Profit is always going to be an issue. No one lives in a city because they enjoy living in a urban sprawl, it's because that is where the jobs are. So something which adversely affects the companies based there is not going to work.
As to blind spots - as Neil says, you can't monitor everything. The better thing to do is to stay out of them. As a cyclist you have a choice.
If you don't try to work with others on the road then they will likely tell you to put on a helmet, wear more lights and not have headphones in, because you don't appreciate the issues that face them....
"As an hgv driver" & "but in this case they are right"
First comment explains a lot and they are not right.
In this case I believe Neil is right.
Let's imagine they ban heavies from 7-9 and 4-6, where will they park up? Lorry parks will have to be created on the outside of the exclusion zone which by the time you add the extra travel involved will effectively stretch the exclusion time even further.
What you will be left with is more heavies per hour trying to squeeze into London at the allowed times.
or
If you ban the biggest vehicle there is every chance you will need 2/3/4 smaller vehicles to transport the same amount of goods, is that a preferable situation?
A standard artic trailer will carry 26 ISO pallets (they're the really large ones) or 45 roll cages (they're the huge cages you sometimes see at night in supermarkets).
A standard transit van will carry two ISO pallets.
A modern 7.5t box van might have a typical payload of 5t, so you might need five or six of these to replace one artic, potentially.
Also note that unloading multiple vans would take a lot longer, particularly if they had to be unloaded by hand, rather than straight out with a forklift. And while one van was being unloaded, the progress of the other vans "on route" might have to be very carefully orchestrated.
I'm not. But I agree with him. Is that OK?
Why wouldn't it be? think what you like even though you are wrong.
So much victim blaming going on here, it's laughable.
The FTA is right? Oh, pull the other one.
Will the ban really result on a deluge and 8 times the number of trucks on the road? Reeaally?
The maths makes no sense whatsoever. Trucks delivering goods outside peak hour will be in less traffic so it will actually be more efficient.
There's a surprise; Boris trying to kick it into the long. Just so long as business is pandered too, eh?
There's a surprise; Boris trying to kick it into the long. Just so long as business is pandered too, eh?
These are the typical issues that arise when we put proffits before life itself. This is all about money.
Yes it is, next?
I've suggested for while that left hand drive makes more sense for trucks, especially in urban areas where there are lots of people walking and cycling.
Also authorities need to stop build skinny cycle lanes down the left hand edge of a traffic lane. Make them a full lane's width, and have a separate green stage for cycles to get them all the way across a junction
I notice they've ignored cities it has worked, like Utrecht in the Netherlands where the ban started because the bridges in the centre weren't strong enough. That was the bit I noticed the most when I visited, the lack of huge imposing lorries. There's construction going on everywhere, they are totally remodelling the centre including putting the canal back in, they manage fine, even the temporary cycle facilities are 20 times better than anything we have here.
The big gyratories and 4 lane bits you find in London are the dangerous bits so the segregation argument is still the more compelling one. It's the bits like Camden down to Kings Cross and Bow that would always carry heavy vehicles anyway - put proper provision for bikes and good pedestrian crossings and less people will die.
How about banning HGVs with dangerous blindpots?
It's 2013 - cameras are cheap, blindspots are easy to rectify. There's simply no reason to allow vehicles with dangerous blindspots on the roads, much less into crowded city streets.
With typically six mirrors and three windscreens to monitor already, it must be appreciated that any mirror or screen (or indeed cameras) that are not being looked at at any given moment, are, in effect, blindspots, in addition to the physical blindspots around the lorry.
Too many things to look at can be a retrograde step once a lorry is moving. You can assess your own limitions by seeing how many TVs you can competently (and I do mean competently) watch simultaneously, next time you're in an electrical showroom.
Surely you only have to monitor the one(s) relevant to the manoeuvre you're making though? Are you actually suggesting that it's preferable for an HGV driver just to leave it down to chance that there's nothing in their blindspot rather than giving them the capability to monitor it?
If a vehicle has that many blindspots that it's impossible to safely monitor them then is that vehicle fit to be on the road?
No, I'm certainly not suggesting that drivers "leave it down to chance".
I'm merely pointing out to cyclists that there is no guarantee that the hgv driver is specifically watching them, given the (often considerable) number of other cyclists, pedestrians and drivers, many of whom are moving, often at speed, and sometimes when it is dark or raining, all around the lorry.
Regardless of the competence of either the hgv driver or the cyclist, whether one party or the other is breaking the law, whatever the whys and wherefores of the situation, it is absolutely essential for cyclists to be crystal clear about this fundamental point: mirrors on a truck are an aid to, but not a guarantee of, safety.
If one driver can't monitor the blind spots properly, that seems an excellent argument to suggest that the vehicle is too dangerous to be driven on public roads, and certainly on crowded city streets. It's not just cyclists that are being killed - actually far more pedestrians are being killed by lorries in London than cyclists.
But given that a lorry isn't allowed to move on a building site without a dedicated banksman - just enforce a rule that every lorry in London had a co driver responsible for checking the blindspots.
Oh, and given how many lorries turn out to be unsafe when they're being stopped - maybe the met should focus on making sure that lorries even meet the existing rules, instead of hassling cyclists.
Maybe you're right, and some trucks are indeed double manned.
If I had a co driver, as you suggest, I'd get him (or her) to jump out, and physically prevent the silly tw*ts from squeezing up the inside of my artic when I'm clearly indicating to turn left, bless em.
Alas, I suspect that most people wouldn't want to pay even more for everything they buy, to pay for a phalanx of co drivers, but we can but dream.
I agree that too many trucks are being driven with defects. It's a particular problem, currently, but we're working hard to resolve this issue within our industry.
Pages