Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cycle award winning boss of waste management firm questions feasibility of mayor's HGV rating system

Says Direct Vision Standard proposals are ‘too ambitious’

The cycle award winning managing director of a London waste management firm has claimed that the Mayor of London’s plans to ban 35,000 of the most dangerous HGVs from the capital’s roads are ‘unfeasible’. Jacqueline O’Donovan believes that direct vision cabs are ‘the way forward’ but says Sadiq Khan’s plans are ‘far too ambitious’ and not financially viable.

North London based O’Donovan Waste Disposal was thought to have been the first British firm to buy direct vision cabs which increase the driver’s field of view in front and to the sides of a lorry. The firm has also sponsored London ‘Bike Tube’ rides led by the London Cycling Campaign, intended to encourage people to try cycling to work.

UK Haulier reports that O’Donovan was recently recognised for her commitment to cyclist safety in London at the 30th anniversary of The Irish World Awards.

Writing to the London Evening Standard regarding Sadiq Khan’s proposal for a ‘zero to five star’ Direct Vision Standard for HGVs operating within the capital, O’Donovan said that while direct vision was the way forward, the broader plans weren’t feasible.

“On Sadiq Khan’s HGV proposal, direct vision is the way forward to improve HGV safety and we are champions of continued innovation. 

“However, Khan’s formal proposal for an HGV rating system is far too ambitious and the requirements will push independent companies out of the running. Coming down hard on the logistics industry is an easy win for Khan, but his plans aren’t feasible, nor are they financially viable.

“Our industry and Transport for London have worked tirelessly to improve direct vision and safety, which is evident from the reduced number of collisions we see today. The Mayor appears to be ignoring all this good work and punishing HGV operators with this pie-in-the-sky proposal.”

A consultation on the plans will run until April 18.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

11 comments

Avatar
londoncommute | 7 years ago
3 likes

Should we focus so much on HGV's though?  Even if they represent a disproportionate number of accidents that will still be the minority compared to those with cars.  

Far better for people to actually cut out all those car journeys in cities that could be done on public transport rather than look for a bogey man to blame instead. 

I appreciate this comment is completely London centric but we need to make driving here socially unacceptable.  You do need to carry 30 tonnes of steel in a lorry, you don't need to drive to the supermarket half a mile away.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to londoncommute | 7 years ago
0 likes

londoncommute wrote:

Should we focus so much on HGV's though?  Even if they represent a disproportionate number of accidents that will still be the minority compared to those with cars.  

Far better for people to actually cut out all those car journeys in cities that could be done on public transport rather than look for a bogey man to blame instead. 

I appreciate this comment is completely London centric but we need to make driving here socially unacceptable.  You do need to carry 30 tonnes of steel in a lorry, you don't need to drive to the supermarket half a mile away.

we need to ban all private motors from town centres, while at the same time reduce the number, size and speed of hgvs and increase their safety.

the less other traffic on the roads, the worse the hgv drivers drive - at least, the ones delivering to building sites- so their speed in town needs to be severely limited. They seem to see an open road ('open' means no motor traffic, but may contain cyclists) as an invitation to drive at their top speed.

 

Avatar
matthewn5 replied to londoncommute | 7 years ago
4 likes

londoncommute wrote:

Should we focus so much on HGV's though?  Even if they represent a disproportionate number of accidents that will still be the minority compared to those with cars. 

YES, they were involved in around 2/3 of cyclist deaths in London, despite being  4% of London traffic. 9 of the 14 cyclist fatalities in 2013 involved HGVs. The measure had 90% support from the public at consultation. They are a menace!

Avatar
londoncommute replied to matthewn5 | 7 years ago
0 likes

matthewn5 wrote:

londoncommute wrote:

Should we focus so much on HGV's though?  Even if they represent a disproportionate number of accidents that will still be the minority compared to those with cars. 

YES, they were involved in around 2/3 of cyclist deaths in London, despite being  4% of London traffic. 9 of the 14 cyclist fatalities in 2013 involved HGVs. The measure had 90% support from the public at consultation. They are a menace!

 

That's interesting, I hadn't realised how bad it was.  Lower in 2014 though:

"In 2014 HGVs accounted for four per cent of all traffic but 38 per cent of cyclist deaths and 25 per cent of pedestrian deaths. A longer term study shows that between 2008-2014 HGVs accounted for 53 per cent of cyclists deaths."

Still, I've been taken out a half dozen times by car drivers on pointless journeys and have to suffer terrible air quality.  At least lorries are serving a purpose. 

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to londoncommute | 7 years ago
1 like
Quote:

you don't need to drive to the supermarket half a mile away.

Don't know about you but I can't carry a weeks food for the family home on foot/bike. So if I don't drive to the supermarket I have to get the van to deliver to me instead. Not sure whether this is better or worse.

Avatar
Paul_C replied to wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
2 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:
Quote:

you don't need to drive to the supermarket half a mile away.

Don't know about you but I can't carry a weeks food for the family home on foot/bike. So if I don't drive to the supermarket I have to get the van to deliver to me instead. Not sure whether this is better or worse.

invest in a cargo trailer... not that expensive and coupled with an e-bike is a win win... it's what I use

Avatar
kitsunegari replied to wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
0 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:
Quote:

you don't need to drive to the supermarket half a mile away.

 

Don't know about you but I can't carry a weeks food for the family home on foot/bike. So if I don't drive to the supermarket I have to get the van to deliver to me instead. Not sure whether this is better or worse.

It's better; much better.

If everyone did the same, there would only be the need for the supermarket deliver van, which could be powered by hydrogen or electricity, saving how ever many single family car journeys, thereby getting that pollution and congestion off the road.

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
1 like

Spot on - her 'financially viable' is doublespeak too: it might cost buttons for the assembly to bring in, but the costs of reforming from cowboys in MOT-dodging trucks might prove too much for some.

What's not to like with that?

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 7 years ago
6 likes

"Too ambitious" means - "we are being asked to have lorries where drivers can properly see who or what (whether cyclist, pedestrians or anyone else) is near them, and we know we should have such lorries, but we don't want to spend the money".

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 7 years ago
6 likes

The "cycle award winning manager" was given an award - wrongly in our opinion - by Irish World World Awards.

She has set up a petition for cyclists to have compulsory insurance, ID numbers on bikes - you should get the picture. https://t.co/PmQhc8k1Du

As usual in such cases, she denies the crucial diference in potential lethality between cyclists and her drivers by saying that we should all work together on an equal basis. The victim-blaming of cyclists is accompanied - you guessed it - by say that we should avoid "the blame game."

The fact is that it has been known for some twenty years that HGVs are disporoprtionately invovled in cyclist deaths and more recently it has come to light that twice as many pedestrians as cyclists die in collisions involving HGVs : as yet Ms O'Donovan has not called for compulsory insurance for pedestrians.

I suggest any of your readers who have not so far positively responded to the consultation on safer lorries by the Mayor should respond welcoming it, as have the cyclist, pedestrain and road danger reduction organisations.

Almost all of O'Donovan's lorries are not Direct Vision.

I think you might have examined the issue a little more fully.

Avatar
Man of Lard | 7 years ago
3 likes

Ok, so.collisions are down... Why are people still being killed and seriously injured when there is something that can be simply done to reduce the risk even further?

One death on the roads is too many. The target should be zero and those that stand in the way should bear the costs (NHS, police, fire service, council, courts, compensation to the injured parties (or their families)). The increase in their insurance premiums should concentrate minds.

Latest Comments