Freight Transport Association agrees - government needs to incentivise safer lorry design

On the incentive question, transparent doors and other retro-fitting can be installed for costs which would be to a large extent met by reduction in insurance premiums.

In terms of what needs to be done, see today's post http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/07/21/what-transport-for-london-needs-to-do-for-...

If insurers don't give enough of a discount on a safer design, Have the government impose a BIG tax on non-safe vehicle designs. Incentive done!

To my mind the highway code is clear, it is the task of the driver of a vehicle to ensure it is safe to go, not other road users to scurry like mice.

When the powers-that-be introduced seatbelts, did they have to incentivise people to wear them? Pay them money to cover the costs of fitting them, the inconvenience of having to pull the strap across, that sort of thing? Or did they just say its the law and if you break the law you get fined? Just asking, y'know...?

Why not go one step further? I simply can't understand why the driving position isn't central, with glassed in quarters either side of the driver's feet.
The drivers don;t need to be sitting off to one side and it would make a single design of lorry viable for the whole of Europe with no modifications in production and safer to use in cross-channel operations.

the down side is that drivers would not longer be able to get away with reading, watching films, cooking etc. all of which they've been caught doing in various motorway enforcement actions.

Perhaps if they crushed the trucks found to have bad tyres and brakes and no licence there'd be less of the type on the road that are causing all the problems.

DVLA keen to crush cars like this... why not trucks?

It's easy to get safer lorries.

All the government needs to do is amend the construction and use regulations relating to HGV's and specify all round visibility for the driver.

However, the motor industry has a lot of money. And governments don't like to upset rich benefactors.

I was impressed by the mother who became a share holder in the haulage firm that killed her daughter. It led to driver training and more safery equipment. An isolated case for sure but it's pragmatism at it's best.

I think this article puts weird emphasis on one part of the FTA statement. Since the first thing the FTA asked for to improve safety was improved enforcement I think its worth examining their other suggestions with a more open perspective.

They spent most time arguing against night time restrictions. I'd be interested to see what a normal delivery pattern across the day looks like in other regions - is the London overnight control forcing more lorries onto the road at rush hour? Worth looking at ditching possibly harmful legislation before introducing more.

wycombewheeler already noted the EU slowed the safer lorries design being introduced. With FTA 'agreeing' with CTC on the need to incentivize their operators, its worth looking at the incentive package that CTC appeared to ask for

"CTC believes the use of such lorries", referencing the new Mercedes cab design with improved visibility, "should be a contractual requirement for those working on Government contracts such as High Speed 2."

I'd interpret that as whilst blocked from adding legislation on what constitutes a safe lorry by the EU, there may be other ways we can hack the system to get safer trucks introduced earlier. They can call it an incentive if they like. It's creative and worthwhile. Another route would be through vehicle tax, looking at the tax tables for HGVs I was shocked how low they are but there's already a tax break for operators using "road friendly suspension" so why not restructure for safety equipment as well.

I'd still like to see H&S investigate and prosecute road crashes involving commercial vehicles. People fear H&S in a way they don't fear the police.

sad that an industry body thinks the driving incentive for improved safety for the public around their operation is financial and not moral

"mummy won't be home tonight because a haulage operator didn't get a big enough tax break to bother replacing their fleet"

focus needs to be on making the cost of not complying with current legislation so high that it drives rogue operators out of business - time for the H&SE to take over the responsibilities of the Traffic Commissioners with regard to public safety

Those concrete barriers that go up along side road works and contraflows?

Put those between the cycle lane and to main lane at problematic junctions. Charge drivers who collide with them 3 points and a fine for careless drivers and watch them learn how to take left hand corners without crushing things.

Like this but with concrete instead of steel:
https://cyclinginchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/shirley-separa...

I was reading an IT trade magazine a few years back. There was a report from a conference on infrastructure stuff. There is an issue in the industry known as cable cuts. This is where one company laying lines for one thing cuts through another company's cables so taking out people's phones, internet and what have you.

Bear with me on this one.

They had a speaker from Singapore up. Singapore has an almost zero level of cable cuts so people were interested to hear what they did differently. It came down to the fact that they don't do anything differently except that the worker who cuts a cable gets 20 years inside and their manager gets 5 years.

So, actual, real enforced penalties seem to work. At the moment the people who employ/contract unsafe drivers with loads of convictions are able to put their hands up and say "Sorry mate - not my problem". As a side note, the construction industry has a horrible record for safety of workers. They are often able to walk away from that too because the worker was "an independent contractor".

How about every time a lorry kills a cyclist, the designer, manufacturer CEO & a senior FTA official gets a mandatory 1 year in prison, would that be enough of an incentive.

What we need is a regulation or measure that affects all companies equally, or as suggested above an incentive for companies who want government contracts that all lorries need to be safe ones. Companies won't generally act unilaterally unless there is a good reason to, and if being safer increases costs, they'll lose out on business and the risk to the cyclist remains.

We should however empathise more with the drivers. The dodgy ones aside, they are rarely acting recklessly and no-one wants to crush a 21 year old woman with their vehicle. I'm still shocked by the number of cyclists who go up on the inside of lorries despite the risks being more than obvious.

If the FTA 'need' the government to incentivise safer lorry design, why do we need the FTA?

The haulage industry has a number of deaths of cyclists on its hands, it's a shame that they cannot put their own house in order; too busy chasing cash....

Once again the heavily subsidised & often lawless haulage industry holds out the begging bowl. Lets start jailing directors of companies that kill cyclists and pedestrians, and those that flout the laws. Is that an incentive for them?

Whilst we view the safety aspect from our point of view as cyclists, it is also worth remembering that commercial driving is a very high risk occupation. Whilst HGV v bicycle accidents are always going to be one sided, we are actually in this together with drivers.

lets not forget the eu stopped the release of safer more economic lorries.

it's no good if the companies that would prioritise safety are forced out of business by those that won't. make the safer lorries mandatory, the the people requiring transport foot the bill at the end of the day.

Corporate manslaughter prosecution for companies who cause death by using unsafe lorries. That kind of incentive.

You'll get fined or have your licence suspended if you don't fit safety equipment or buy safer vehicles when refreshing tour fleet.

Incentive enough?

Yeah because as ever with the Freight Transport Association the incentive of not killing other road users isn't in itself enough incentive is it, they need another handout.