Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

London Assembly votes unanimously for rush hour lorry ban

Motion also puts pressure on Mayor of London to crack down on dangerous lorries in the capital

The London Assembly has unanimously called for a rush hour lorry ban, a crackdown on dangerous lorries and rogue operators and confidential reporting of bad practice, to prevent more cycling deaths in the capital.

Of eight cycling fatalities this year in London, seven occurred following collision with an HGV. Assembly members have unanimously agreed a motion calling for the Mayor of London to help implement new policies to prevent further deaths.

The motion, tabled by Green Party member, Darren Johnson AM, warns that there are still too many dangerous lorries on London's roads and urgent action is needed.

- Nearly 3 in 4 lorries stopped by police in London don't comply with the law

Darren Johnson said Londoners should be able to cycle to work and school "without fearing for their lives".

He said: "Far too many people have died under the wheels of an HGV in London. We know the safety measures which would make cyclists safer and there is a growing cross-party determination that we need to end the unnecessary deaths and injuries on our roads.

"The Dutch-style cycle paths now being built will physically separate cyclists from lorries on some roads, but we also need to look at separating the majority of cyclists from lorries on the rest of London’s main roads by having them travel at different times of day.

- Save London cyclists by banning lorries in rush hour says Harriet Harman

The motion calls on the Mayor of London to work with the Government and commercial partners to implement the following policies:

·         A rush-hour lorry ban, subject to the completion of a full impact assessment;

·         The construction industry to adopt Construction Logistics and Cyclist Safety (CLOCS) standards across the board, including direct vision lorry cabs, including a commitment from the Mayor to make direct vision lorry cabs compulsory on all GLA Group contracts before the end of his term of office;

·         Confidential reporting of bad practice to be rolled out to all HGV drivers, irrespective of whether their employer wants to take part;

·         Comprehensive enforcement so that rogue operators do not permit unlicensed, untrained lorry drivers, or unsafe vehicles, to operate on our roads, with regular reporting from the London Freight Enforcement Partnership against an aim to reduce commercial vehicle casualties.

Add new comment

18 comments

Avatar
Malaconotus | 107 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

Perhaps an elaborate system of tunnels under London could be built and trains used to transport goods around this 'tube' system.  This would leave the ground level free of noise, danger, and pollution.

 

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 385 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

This is  basically a step in the right direction - but only a step. For what needs to be done in London: http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/07/21/what-transport-for-london-needs-to-do-for-...

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 385 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

This is  basically a step in the right direction - but only a step. For what needs to be done in London: http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/07/21/what-transport-for-london-needs-to-do-for-...

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 385 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

This is  basically a step in the right direction - but only a step. For what needs to be done in London: http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/07/21/what-transport-for-london-needs-to-do-for-...

Avatar
cczmark | 29 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

Politicians unanimously voting through a common sense measure for the benefit of the community. Whatever next? Can't see this sort of thing catching on...

 1

Avatar
alansmurphy | 2606 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

Nearly there Londoncommute, i think the one we miss is the cycling infrastructure that puts us down the left hand side of lorries in the first instance - be this in general traffic or a lane at lights with a box at the front...

Avatar
PaulBox | 676 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

A step in the right direction.

Avatar
londoncommute | 130 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

So those of us who go in early and already don't get the benefit of bus lanes (most start at 0700) will now get a million times more lorries.

Really not sure this is addressing the root of the problem.

Avatar
bobinski replied to londoncommute | 340 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

<p>[quote=londoncommute]</p>

<p>So those of us who go in early and already don't get the benefit of bus lanes (most start at 0700) will now get a million times more lorries.</p>

<p>Really not sure this is addressing the root of the problem.</p>

I do think there is a very strong argument for extending bus lane hours anyway. Why are they only a relatively safe haven for cyclists during restricted hours? cycling in them out of those hours and especially at weekends Londons roads-ok I am being London centric here-are chocka with traffic is often nerve wracking. What about sunday cycle rides for people, families even, rather than most jumping in their cars? I would love to cycle into the west end with my kids but its not going to happen. You could still allow local parking in parking bays within to appease local residents and businesses but keep them car free otherwise.

<p>[/quote]</p>

Avatar
jollygoodvelo replied to londoncommute | 2185 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

londoncommute wrote:

So those of us who go in early and already don't get the benefit of bus lanes (most start at 0700) will now get a million times more lorries.

Really not sure this is addressing the root of the problem.

But those lorries will, if the proposals are implemented, be individually and collectively safer.

 

We can't ban lorries from central London full stop.  But we can separate them in time from *most* of the cycling traffic; that's a great move and I hope it's followed through.

Avatar
londoncommute replied to jollygoodvelo | 130 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

Gizmo_ wrote:

londoncommute wrote:

So those of us who go in early and already don't get the benefit of bus lanes (most start at 0700) will now get a million times more lorries.

Really not sure this is addressing the root of the problem.

But those lorries will, if the proposals are implemented, be individually and collectively safer.

 

We can't ban lorries from central London full stop.  But we can separate them in time from *most* of the cycling traffic; that's a great move and I hope it's followed through.

 

I'm sure this has been put better elsewhere but there isn't really a "rush hour" in London as it lasts for hours.  If you really do move them to the middle of the night then you blight the lives of people living near main roads.

Surely the solution is to get the pretty large proportion of dodgy lorries off the road (the Met found two-thirds were defective or illegal in recent campaigns) and keep banging home to us cyclists that we shouldn't be undertaking near left hand turns. 

Avatar
bikebot replied to londoncommute | 2105 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

londoncommute wrote:

 

I'm sure this has been put better elsewhere but there isn't really a "rush hour" in London as it lasts for hours.  If you really do move them to the middle of the night then you blight the lives of people living near main roads.

Surely the solution is to get the pretty large proportion of dodgy lorries off the road (the Met found two-thirds were defective or illegal in recent campaigns) and keep banging home to us cyclists that we shouldn't be undertaking near left hand turns. 

Limiting lorries as a measure to control noise has never made any sense to me.  I don't find lorries especially noisy, in fact the most disturbing vehicles are the two stroke hairdryers which operate at all hours delivering food in London.  

If the objective is to control noise, then vehicles should be specifically limited by noise.  Fleet operators can then focus on methods to mitigate that so as to operate at night.

 

Avatar
DaveE128 replied to bikebot | 992 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

bikebot wrote:

Limiting lorries as a measure to control noise has never made any sense to me.  I don't find lorries especially noisy, in fact the most disturbing vehicles are the two stroke hairdryers which operate at all hours delivering food in London.  

If the objective is to control noise, then vehicles should be specifically limited by noise.  Fleet operators can then focus on methods to mitigate that so as to operate at night.

In my experience, lorries create a lot of low frequency noise, which penetrates walls and so is far more disturbing than the pesky two-strokes (which stink!).

Putting limits on their noise profile might be worth looking at.

Avatar
bikebot replied to DaveE128 | 2105 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

DaveE128 wrote:

bikebot wrote:

Limiting lorries as a measure to control noise has never made any sense to me.  I don't find lorries especially noisy, in fact the most disturbing vehicles are the two stroke hairdryers which operate at all hours delivering food in London.  

If the objective is to control noise, then vehicles should be specifically limited by noise.  Fleet operators can then focus on methods to mitigate that so as to operate at night.

In my experience, lorries create a lot of low frequency noise, which penetrates walls and so is far more disturbing than the pesky two-strokes (which stink!).

Putting limits on their noise profile might be worth looking at.

High frequency noise travels further.  I've lived on a main road in London, I wouldn't want to do that again but lorries didn't especially bother me.  I now live about 100m away from one, the only traffic that disturbs me at this distance is motorbikes.

 

Avatar
2old2mould | 117 posts | 7 years ago
1 like

But does this translate into action? As far as I can tell this is just a list of things that the assembly would like the Mayor to do rather than a list of demands that have to be addressed and delivered.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to 2old2mould | 934 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

2old2mould wrote:

But does this translate into action? As far as I can tell this is just a list of things that the assembly would like the Mayor to do rather than a list of demands that have to be addressed and delivered.

Well steady there.  The London Assembly can't just make traffic laws by raising their hands once.  But it's a big step with a unanimous vote on putting that to the London Mayor's Office. Everything starts like this.  You campaign and you get agreement and then you move through the various decision making bodies and eventually you get some action.

 

 

Avatar
2old2mould replied to oozaveared | 117 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

oozaveared wrote:

2old2mould wrote:

But does this translate into action? As far as I can tell this is just a list of things that the assembly would like the Mayor to do rather than a list of demands that have to be addressed and delivered.

Well steady there.  The London Assembly can't just make traffic laws by raising their hands once.  But it's a big step with a unanimous vote on putting that to the London Mayor's Office. Everything starts like this.  You campaign and you get agreement and then you move through the various decision making bodies and eventually you get some action.

 

 

 

OK, no I get that. My point is that by the time a pot of common sense proposals gets to law it's been p*ssed into by so many people with vested interests that it's watered down beyond anything that is reasonably useful. 

I may just be being cynical though and I hope to be proven wrong.

Avatar
DaveE128 replied to 2old2mould | 992 posts | 7 years ago
0 likes

2old2mould wrote:

But does this translate into action? As far as I can tell this is just a list of things that the assembly would like the Mayor to do rather than a list of demands that have to be addressed and delivered.

This. The article either didn't cover this, or I missed it. I got the vague impression that this has no direct effect at all.

Latest Comments