Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

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

FTA says companies would buy safer lorries if they were more "commercially viable"...

The Freight Transport Association has agreed government needs to incentivise the use of safer lorry design, following David Cameron's announcement last week he would ask the Transport Secretary to look at improving HGV safety.

In response to the PM's meeting with the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) last week during which Cameron said he would ask the Transport Secretary to look into measures to improve cyclist safety, including possible HGV bans in city centres, Christopher Snelling, Head of Urban Logistics at trade association, the FTA, said government should provide incentives for companies to use safer lorries.

This is in agreement with campaigners who have said safer lorries should be a contractual requirement for all companies working on government contracts like HS2. However, Snelling disagreed with the concept of a city centre lorry ban.

Snelling said: “Even a medium-sized lorry would have to be replaced with 10 vans – which means overall safety would not be improved, let alone the emissions and congestion consequences. It has to be remembered that we don’t choose to deliver at peak times on a whim – our customers need goods at the start of the working day.”

Snelling said he has written to the PM about cycle safety and "is having ongoing discussions with the Transport Secretary and Department for Transport officials over the best ways to improve safety for all road users while preserving efficiency."

Snelling's suggestions are: increased, targeted enforcement of rogue HGV operators, "improved road infrastructure, such as surfaces and junctions", increased compliance of the Construction Safety and Cyclist Safety Standard (CLOS), and incentives from government to make lorries with better visibility "more available and more commercially viable", as well as what he describes as progressive improvement of safety standards from the DfT.

However Snelling claims lorry safety has improved, despite the overwhelming majority of cyclists in London being killed by lorries.

As well as pressing for stronger enforcement of unscrupulous haulage operators the national cycling charity, CTC, said government needs to incentivise safer lorry use. It praised lorry manufacturer Mercedes for making 'great inroads' with its Mercedes Econic (pictured), which has glass doors like a refuse truck, removing the lethal nearside blind spot involved in left turning collisions. 

The CTC's Sam Jones told road.cc: "Whether it's HS2 or the redesign of the A303, or any big public funded project, the government should be looking to ensure that the Heavy Goods Vehicles used are cycle safe, and making that into its bid process." That, he said, would "make companies spend the money on new fleets, because if they want the contract they have got to make sure they have got the right vehicles".

"If central government is doing that it is only a matter of time before local government does that too," he said.

Cameron agreed to meet with the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group following concerns raised by Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw during PMQs after the death of 26-year-old Oxbridge graduate, Ying Tao, at Bank junction in London.

The PM agreed to open channels for a more in-depth meeting with Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, to discuss some form of lorry ban, and improved designs for construction vehicles and better enforcement of lorry safety regulations.

Add new comment

28 comments

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 8 years ago
0 likes

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-...

Avatar
Ronald | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
brooksby | 8 years ago
0 likes

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...?

Avatar
alexb | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
PaulBox replied to alexb | 8 years ago
0 likes
alexb wrote:

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.

Although I understand where you are going, the operation of intercoms, paying of tolls etc. would make central seating positions difficult. Not sure what right-hand-drive truck drivers do at tolls on the continent, but I know it's a PITA in a car.

Personally, if I was driving a truck like this, I'd have cameras fitted for my own peace of mind.

Avatar
MamilMan | 8 years ago
0 likes

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?

Avatar
Nacnud | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
WolfieSmith | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
johndonnelly | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
antigee | 8 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
Initialised | 8 years ago
0 likes

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...

Avatar
SteppenHerring | 8 years ago
0 likes

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".

Avatar
Gus T | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
ADaASasA | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
crikey | 8 years ago
0 likes

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....

Avatar
mrmo replied to crikey | 8 years ago
0 likes
crikey wrote:

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....

and what is the point of the NFU? Too many of these "industry" associations are nothing more than lobby groups trying, successfully, to extract as much money from the tax payer as possible. Anything that might cost money, that might affect profits is to be fought.

Avatar
gazza_d | 8 years ago
0 likes

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?

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Beefy replied to Mungecrundle | 8 years ago
0 likes

 22

Mungecrundle wrote:

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.

I don't get how we are in this together with HGV drivers? How would having safer vehicles for cyclist reduce the risk to drivers? I understand that it might reduce the risk to there license and perhaps be positive for insurance. Not being sarcastic I simply don't get it, it is rare I am passed by a thoughtful HGV drive most pass at speed and don't seem to worry about sucking me towards there trailer.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Beefy | 8 years ago
0 likes
Beefy wrote:

 22

Mungecrundle wrote:

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.

I don't get how we are in this together with HGV drivers? How would having safer vehicles for cyclist reduce the risk to drivers? I understand that it might reduce the risk to there license and perhaps be positive for insurance. Not being sarcastic I simply don't get it, it is rare I am passed by a thoughtful HGV drive most pass at speed and don't seem to worry about sucking me towards there trailer.

The only way I can see a common interest is if it is partly about changing the incentives on drivers in terms of time-pressure or removing pressure on the good drivers for them to compete for work with the bad ones.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
nowasps replied to wycombewheeler | 8 years ago
0 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:

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.

You have this the wrong way round. Various Govs and Industry bosses stopped the EU bring in new safer lorries.

Avatar
DaveE128 replied to wycombewheeler | 8 years ago
0 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:

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.

http://www.transportenvironment.org/news/meps-block-push-delay-safer-lor...

It seems to me that Volvo and Renault may have been behind this. I won't be buying cars from either of them.

Avatar
johndonnelly replied to DaveE128 | 8 years ago
0 likes
DaveE128 wrote:

It seems to me that Volvo and Renault may have been behind this. I won't be buying cars from either of them.

Volvo group owns Volvo Trucks (but not Volvo car since 1999) as well as Renault Trucks (since 2001, but not Renault car). Seems to me there's only one company to criticize here, and unfortunately they're unaffected by your car buying decision.

It is infuriating that really just one company has campaigned to slow down introduction of safer trucks and been able to delay it.

Avatar
gavben | 8 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
velodinho | 8 years ago
0 likes

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?

Avatar
Housecathst | 8 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Housecathst | 8 years ago
0 likes
Housecathst wrote:

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.

Yes, but isn't that just human nature? I don't think I'd say the FTA are uniquely wicked in that respect.

At least its a start - surely, deciding the precise balance between carrot-and-stick is a secondary detail, as long as it reduces the number of deaths?

Latest Comments