Freight Transport Association: Banning HGVs during peak hours is not the answer to cyclist deaths

A V Lowe wrote:

Part of the problem is that the FTA seems to have forgotten that included in their membership are the Rail Freight Group, and the Commercial Boat Owners Association. Members of both these parts of FTA are already removing '00's of trucks of the streets of London, and could do much more if FTA took off their own blinkers. The insensitive response with a clear bias to their road haulage activity earlier this year was a seriously bad move, considering that, with rail and river they could do a substantial amount to reduce the number of trucks moving around in London

You might also see you own eyes and ask just how many 44T tractor-semi-trailer rigs you actually see on London's streets at any time during the working day - you could probably count them on your fingers on a typical ride across London. No need for great puff from Bojo or Boardman. You'll even see this as far North as Luton, as the big trucks vanish from the traffic mix from around 06.30 onwards until around 10.00 on the motorway - at £300,000+ a pop for a big rig plus a premium rate to get a good quality Class E driver, it is just not economically sensible to have these trucks stuck averaging less than 20 Kph when they should be maximising their productivity at 80Kph on the motorway. Look around you won't see that many artics or drawbar trailers operating in London

Even when the bulk loads are reconsolidated in to shop sized drops, economics plays its part and few deliveries require trucks bigger than the 7.5T, indeed some analyses suggest that around 30% of shop deliveries could be made by cargo cycles, and small electric vans, such as already being proved by Gnewt, Outspoken and others, making thousands of drops per day faster and cheaper than possible by large and less flexible motor vehicles.

The problem is construction traffic and how the industries involved, and the planners/government are prepared to deal with the issues of moving materials to and from the construction sites, which by definition present sporadic and random levels of traffic as the development progresses. It is not uncommon to have a fleet of tippers moving material on or off site at the rate of 3,000-4,000 Tons per day.

A combination of various economic factors and regulatory lassitude, acting almost in a catch 22 self defeating swirl means tha tr 'currency' for construction site transport is the 32T 4 axle rigid truck. This is the heaviest rigid truck permitted - at nominally 8 Tons/axle with a payload of around 20 Tons. Because of its design and easily imbalanced axle loadings a DfT study fund it to be the most damaging vehicle on our roads - a 44T articulated tipper carries 50% more payload, does less damage and costs less to operate. However the initial costs and the wider availability of class C drivers, to supply the spasmodic surges of demand (good Class E drivers, and good class C ones, tend to move to cleaner regular work driving for retail and logistics).

Many construction firms don't have a huge fleet of their own trucks either, and small sub contractors operate in livery. For buses the law requires the name and registered address of the operator to appear in a very specific place and style, so that they are readily identified, but the facility is not required for trucks - and it is rare to see the truck owner and operator identified in any reports on a crash, the focus is on the driver, rather than the operator who provided that driver with the means to kill or maim.

One big retailer who "Tries Harder" does manage their own fleet and are reported as being acutely sensitive to any possibility of a driver or vehicle getting them the slightest tarnishing of their operator's licence, and incurring a loss of good repute which can mean fines and a reduction in the number of trucks they can operate. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who appear regularly before the Traffic Commissioners and in their Notices and Proceedings, for all the wrong reasons.

So what are we to do which makes practical sense. Well for a start we should look at the impact that developments requiring massive excavations and towering piles vying for excess in design and presence on the skyline. For the Shard 30 trucks each with 3 drivers for round the clock shift working ran round the clock for nearly 3 days. That's a huge increase in exposure for the risk of those vehicles colliding with other road users. On another site 3000Tons per day was travelling from Camden to Pitsea to be tipped - a 64 mile round trip which needed around 50 trucks per day running for just over 3 months to move the material being dug out. All this with an aggregates unloading siding and railway lines less than 0.5Km away.

It can be done - a few enlightened contractors are doing this but the FTA shot themselves in the foot by failing to showcase this - up to 10,000 Tons - 500 tipper/skip trucks is now going on London's waterways every day. That is potentially 1000 fewer trips being made and 1000 fewer opportunities for a truck to hit a pedestrian or cyclist. This can happen even more if there are places to load the barges and trains and that requires a high level freight strategy - so what did Boris do in his first term - shut down TfL's Freight Unit - the very people who need to plan and probably manage wharves and railheads, available for each project to use. Fortunately the 2012 Olympics showed that we actually needed a TfL Freight Unit but it gets pitiful support.

Walbrook Wharf is the only river freight loading facility in the City of London - and it can only be used at high tide - handles 500T barges with container gantry crane loading.

There is ONE example AFAIK in the UK of a 26T tipper with a full height glazed twin leaf n/s door that shows a vehicle with minimal blind spots can be built. Now if GLA made low cabs compulsory on all trucks operating in Central London, in same way they have done for emissions....

A very good post.

The only thing I'd dispute is the number of artics in London.

In my opinion, there are many more than people think. I suspect that a high level of professionalism amongst artic drivers helps to ensure that they are noticed less often.

IanW1968 wrote:

I would also like to see the incentives and performance management of commercial drivers regulated.

We know that the aggressive management techniques encourages people to take risks, its tightly regulated in financial services for instance, because money is important right?

So why is it not regulated when the risk is life?

This is a key point actually. There are a lot of heavy vehicles on London's roads. Why is it that tipper trucks in particular are involved in so many cycling fatalities?

OldRidgeback wrote:

IanW1968 wrote:

I would also like to see the incentives and performance management of commercial drivers regulated.

We know that the aggressive management techniques encourages people to take risks, its tightly regulated in financial services for instance, because money is important right?

So why is it not regulated when the risk is life?

This is a key point actually. There are a lot of heavy vehicles on London's roads. Why is it that tipper trucks in particular are involved in so many cycling fatalities?

Because, imo, many tripper drivers, for whatever reason, tend to be in a bit of a rush.

OldRidgeback wrote:

This is a key point actually. There are a lot of heavy vehicles on London's roads. Why is it that tipper trucks in particular are involved in so many cycling fatalities?

a lot of it is down to the fact that tippers are uniquely well designed to kill vulnerable road users. they have very bad visibility from the cab, the per-axle weight is very high and there's no barrier along the side of the truck, or in front of the rear wheels. plus most of the drivers are on piece work which is an incentive to drive quickly.

The other factor is that construction sites require a continuous removal of waste material and supply of stuff like concrete (a perishable load). so those trucks will be running all day - most retailers avoid central London deliveries during the working day as far as possible, and account for a relatively small percentage of the vehicle movements. Typically a big construction site may be generating 150-200 trips per day just to remove the waste material to the tip, and because the tip is 30-35 miles out from London they rack up huge levels of exposure to the risk of collision, as well as a huge footprint of road damage, pollution etc.

Because the phases of a construction project are transient, demand for trucks and drivers is transient and the trucks are rigid, maximum permitted weight and the biggest that can be driven on Class C licence. It will be apparent from the driving records of some of the drivers involved in fatal crashes that the quality of drivers on this work is dangerously variable as well.

A V Lowe wrote:

The other factor is that construction sites require a continuous removal of waste material and supply of stuff like concrete (a perishable load). so those trucks will be running all day - most retailers avoid central London deliveries during the working day as far as possible, and account for a relatively small percentage of the vehicle movements. Typically a big construction site may be generating 150-200 trips per day just to remove the waste material to the tip, and because the tip is 30-35 miles out from London they rack up huge levels of exposure to the risk of collision, as well as a huge footprint of road damage, pollution etc.

Because the phases of a construction project are transient, demand for trucks and drivers is transient and the trucks are rigid, maximum permitted weight and the biggest that can be driven on Class C licence. It will be apparent from the driving records of some of the drivers involved in fatal crashes that the quality of drivers on this work is dangerously variable as well.

A tipper truck, of the type often involved in fatalities in London, can be 32 tonnes when fully loaded, which some cyclists might find a little surprising. Alas, often with this type of work, the more you haul the more you earn which, in my opinion as an hgv driver, is the reason why so many tragedies involve this type of hgv.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

I think that the cycling lobby needs to be very careful with this issue. If we successfully make the case that HGVs and bicycles cannot co-exist safely at peak times then there is only one credible option: ban bicycles from the roads at peak times.

Cyclists have other options. We can switch to walking, public transport, motorcycles, scooters or even the wretched car if we have to. What are Tescos going to do? Replace one artic with how many vans, creating more pollution and congestion.

Our society has evolved to be completely dependent on motorised transportation. From my viewpoint as I type, I cannot think of a single object in this house that would be here without some form of motorised transportation being involved, nothing in the fridge, not even my bicycle.

Without a total revolution in the way that we live (and that sort of transformation takes years of planning and implementation) like it or not, the HGV is much more essential to the way our life than the bicycle.

Unless we want to end up with the same status as rollerskaters and skateboarders when it comes to rights to use the road, we should accept reality and concentrate on practical measures such as better education, segregated lanes / routes instead of dreaming of a pie-in-the-sky motorless utopia, 'cause it ain't going to happen.

I didn't want to mention it but I agree with you; once the impossibility of a peak hour lorry ban becomes obvious, then it's possible that a peak hours bike ban (for certain routes) will be considered. As you say, it's not as if cyclists have to cycle on the busiest roads, and that will be the main thrust of the argument. I don't want cyclists to be banned, because it could be the thin end of the wedge, but the more vociferous the "clamour" for an hgv ban becomes, the more likely a "politically expedient" solution may be found.

No government is going to risk any hint of a supply problem in the capital. Human nature being what it is, you'll have panic buying and, as we all know, there are thousands of Londoners just waiting for an opportunity to start looting again, now they know that the police only have limited resources to cope with an organised campaign. The top brass know they must ultimately keep the trucks rolling at any cost.

Don't bakeries need flour and other ingredients delivered?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Don't bakeries need flour and other ingredients delivered?

Yes, but not every day in an HGV.

pjay wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Don't bakeries need flour and other ingredients delivered?

Yes, but not every day in an HGV.

Well are you saying sandwiches are the problem then? I'm being a bit obtuse. But where does it start and stop? I would like fresh bakeries too. But are you picking on them? How many bakery trucks were involved in accidents? Should you lobby particular industries for their non-essential use of lorries/HGVs. Seems a bit simplistic. But maybe I'm wrong.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

pjay wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Don't bakeries need flour and other ingredients delivered?

Yes, but not every day in an HGV.

Well are you saying sandwiches are the problem then? I'm being a bit obtuse. But where does it start and stop? I would like fresh bakeries too. But are you picking on them? How many bakery trucks were involved in accidents? Should you lobby particular industries for their non-essential use of lorries/HGVs. Seems a bit simplistic. But maybe I'm wrong.

I'm just saying that if the restriction of 'baked' goods deliveries (to supermarkets? Gregg's?) is the best argument the FTA can come up with they are not making a very strong argument. We could learn a lot from Paris and, perhaps, in the process improve the quality of life for everyone in London:

https://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/one-year-on-a-post-...

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

As I said before, I really don't see how one can have a sensible opinion on this without a lot more information. Personally I just don't think I know enough to know what to think!

Has the number of such vehicles increased over the years, and if so, why? Changing shopping habits? Decline of rail? What? Can any of these factors be reversed, and what would be the cost of doing so? Do we really need all these construction projects in London? How come other cities don't seem to have all this constant rebuilding going on?

Which kind of HGVs pose the bigger threat? (personally I find its the smaller ones that tend to be most badly driven)

Can they not be coralled onto certain roads only, roads that cyclists can in turn then avoid? (there's a junction near me where lorries regularly roll over the pavement at the corner because they are too large to get round it safely - why are they there?).

Why were the likes of Dennis Putz and Jao Lopes employed? Should there not be more penalties for employers who employ known bad drivers?

And so on.

Some good points there.

I think that the purpose use roads for trucks is a good idea. The thing is, as pointed out by the BBC is that roads are actually safer. Cycling numbers are up, so more journeys are being made and deaths are actually not any higher (at the moment). It is the problem with clusters - fooled by randomness, as Nicholas Nasim Taleb says (good book).

As much as people talk about not victim blaming, there has been a lot of finger pointing and that equally isn't right. I'm not saying HGVs don't pose a hazard, but understanding how to ride around them is equally important. Not every HGV driver involved in a fatal cycling accident is responsible for the cyclists death....

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Can they not be coralled onto certain roads only, roads that cyclists can in turn then avoid?

Yes they can, and are already. Individual roads can have weight, height, width, or timing restrictions such as a night time lorry ban. Additionally, an employer will often determine routes after taking into account external factors (such as complaints from residents or schools). Lorry specific satnavs are becoming common, which also play a part, since new restrictions can be updated to the satnav via a data card. So there's lots going on that helps reduce any adverse impact.

Could cyclists avoid these roads? Absolutely, although I firmly believe that cyclists should keep their absolute right to cycle where they like. I would personally suggest checking a map, trying a few alternative routes, timing them, and then making an informed descision about which route is right for them. I agree that it may not always be easy (it's hard to find a reasonably direct alternative to CS2, for instance) but I suspect that many cyclists tend to use a main route because they haven't considered alternatives. And don't forget that lorry restrictions (with some exceptions) mean that most cycling is hgv free in London before 7am.

If it was me, especially if I had moved to a new town, I would plot a few routes, download the gpx files to my "Bikehub" app, and use a different quiet route into work each day, just for variety, until I found a route I really liked, that was relatively free of HGVs.

sm wrote:

“It would mean massive economic implications for the shops, businesses and residents of the capital."

Really?

“It would also create new safety issues as one lorry is replaced by about 8"

Agreed, but there would be fewer cyclists.

"Not to mention the increased congestion and air pollution that would result."

How so? It's the same number of lorries, just arriving at different times.

Have I read somewhere that a city has banned all lorries at all times? Or a supermarket is already doing this? Large trucks drop off trucks to smaller trucks for multiple deliveries because it is quicker?

An hgv, when pushed hard to comply with additional restrictions windows, can produce three times as much pollution. One artic does 10mpg. Ten vans might collectively only do 2mpg. In London alone, 3,000 people die each year from vehicle particulate related illnesses. Although one cyclist death is one too many, most people would appreciate that pollution is a bigger problem than cyclist deaths.

Even higher prices in the shops, as a result of increased transport costs, will have a detrimental effect on those close to destituion, particlarly the elderly, the disabled, and those with young children.

The detrimental effects to health, for those required to work shifts, is well known, and will add a burden to a health service that is already at breaking point.

Increased hassle (ie more varied shift work) increases driver "turnover" (ie experienced drivers leaving the profession, only to be replaced by drivers with less experience, or indeed who lack familiarity with UK roads).

I could go on, but I'm you get the point.

Neil753 wrote:

I could go on, but I'm you get the point.

Quite. I think, to summarise, the problems are much more complex than some of the posters above would have you believe.