Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

London Cycling Commissioner brands rush hour lorry ban debate a ‘distraction’

Andrew Gilligan says more protected bike routes, better lorry design and crackdowns on dangerous operators would be more effective

London’s Cycling Commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, has branded calls for a rush hour lorry ban a “distraction” that won’t save as many lives as protected bike lanes and safer lorries.

Responding to a 13,000-strong petition handed to City Hall on Wednesday, and following a unanimous London Assembly vote in favour of a rush hour lorry ban this month, Gilligan told road.cc banning lorries during rush hour may risk more pedestrian lives than the cyclists it could save, as well as causing an enormous backlash, and he says it is unlikely to happen.

This year seven of the eight cyclists killed in London died following lorry collisions. However, Gilligan said of 42 cyclists killed in the capital between 2012-14 only three deaths involved a lorry in the morning rush hour.

13,000-signature End Lorry Danger petition delivered to London's City Hall

The cycling commissioner told road.cc he feels a lorry ban would not be the best way to protect cyclists.

“I think it’s a distraction,” he said.

“I think the answer’s more segregated superhighways, better junctions, I think it’s the kinds of things we’re doing with lorries already to make them safer than they are now. It’s direct vision lorries - that’s going to be the next stage in the safer lorries scheme to mandate that - and it’s general freight management activities.”

Gilligan says other tactics would include cracking down on dangerous operators, and consolidating freight movements so fewer lorries enter the city centre.

He said: “I think there’s huge scope for last mile services, for lorries to deliver to depots on the edges of the centre and for all the companies’ deliveries to be consolidated into one electric van.”

“At the moment you have vast numbers of lorries making trips for a couple of cartons of photocopying here, and a couple more there, and that’s pretty silly.”

Where internet shopping has driven up the numbers of lorries delivering shopping to offices these could go to fulfilment centres at stations, similar to ones already used by online shopping giants such as Amazon.

He added a lorry ban would involve an enormous fight that Transport for London could eventually lose, both with businesses, and residents whose sleep would be affected if operators started delivering at night.

He said: “Even if we won… we might not save a single life because we might not get small reduction in the number of cyclists being killed but you might get a bigger increase in the number of non-cyclists being killed.”

More older people tend to walk after the morning rush hour, so it is sometimes argued they are more vulnerable to an influx of large vehicles at that time.

As well as calls from 13,000 signatories and the London Assembly, road safety campaign group, Stop Killing Cyclists, included a rush hour tipper truck ban among the manifesto pledges it is asking of Mayoral candidates ahead of the London elections in May, which all five candidates answered either “yes”, or “maybe” in the case of Sadiq Khan (Lab) and Zac Goldsmith (Con).

 

Add new comment

19 comments

Avatar
ironmancole | 8 years ago
3 likes

If 2000 lives were being lost in airplane or train accidents per year there'd be outcry - companies prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, people rioting at the disgrace of it all. But driving - oh no, that's just "one of those things". - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/171728-london-cycling-commissioner-brands-ru...

Thank you, excellent point. So the obvious question is why are privatised transportation options such as ferries, rail networks and aviation so heavily regulated to ensure public safety whilst the government regulated transport option pretty much knowingly sacrifice your life and no-one is held to account for it?!

To my simple mind this is a gigantic breach of your basic right to live without undue or unreasonable fear of being maimed or killed in an arbitrary manner.

IF and only IF government could demonstrate they were taking all and every reasonable step to minimise these figures could they argue against culpability of some description but I think we'd all agree we couldn't be much further from a society that trivialises road violence.

Now...how do we collectively challenge this reckless complacency as a vulnerable group and force government to take the same aproach as we expect from P&O, Virgin Trains and British Airways?

The current situation is not ok and we have to find a way to force change, I for one am not cool with being executed simply because Tesco need orange juice on their shelves.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 8 years ago
0 likes

I'd be a little wary of banning certain traffic at certain times as being any sort of long term answer. After all, bicycles are just a certain class of traffic.

Avatar
ironmancole | 8 years ago
1 like

 

We all acknowledge loss of life will continue whilst lorry design stays focused on maximising haulage space rather than a cab with better sight lines.

My question is how come government can recognise this but drag heels to force change? We know the road haulage industry and motor manufacturers have government under their thumb.

Scenario - My factory is dangerous and everyone tells me so, I acknowledge it publicly and the health and safety executive are also aware.

I refuse to change anything at all as its inconvenient and will cost me money, instead promising to make changes in ten years or so.

People continue to die, needlessly and in pretty horrific ways. I'm guilty of corporate manslaughter each and every time. 

So, why is no-one in government responsible when death of the public is recognised? How is it any different if David Cameron himself sat and randomly picked out say fifty people, had them brought to Trafalgar Square then shot each of them in the head?

Seems turning a blind eye makes the deaths just fine but doing it in Trafalgar Square isn't. So, why is this?

Avatar
crazy-legs replied to ironmancole | 8 years ago
2 likes

ironmancole wrote:

Seems turning a blind eye makes the deaths just fine but doing it in Trafalgar Square isn't. So, why is this?

Heartless and brutal as this sounds, it comes down to cost benefit. Essentially, society as a whole has, for a whole range of reasons, come to accept that the price of easy movement, the price of having whatever goods and services you want, as and when you want them, is about 2000 human lives per year.

That's the "acceptable" price for your ability and freedom to drive around the place or for goods/services to be driven around on behalf of society.

Society has decided that the cost to the economy of banning lorries or doing x, y and z to make the roads safer is too high compared to the cost of 2000 human lives per year. It's the only industry that does this. If 2000 lives were being lost in airplane or train accidents per year there'd be outcry - companies prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, people rioting at the disgrace of it all. But driving - oh no, that's just "one of those things".

Couple that in to various other factors like the econmoy being so closely linked to indices such as the price of fuel, how cars are a ubiquitous part of modern day life, the sway that both the motor industry and the haulage industry hold over Government and you're up against a lot of inertia to get the status quo shifted.

That said, I still agree with Gilligan. Get the infrastructure built and you won't need to ban anything, equally you won't need to mandate helmets or hi vis. All of those discussions are a distraction to the real issue.

Avatar
hampstead_bandit | 8 years ago
2 likes

instead of spending money on infrastructure or forcing lorry operators to buy new vehicles?

 

why not spend some money tasking the Police force to actively enforce the law, by checking all heavy goods vehicles and construction vehicles operating in London?

 

From what I have read about the results of previous Police operations, large numbers of these vehicles have been found to be defective. 

By expanding these operations, surely more defective vehicles can  be taken off the roads?

Hitting commerical operators in the pocket by heavy fines or vehicle confisciation will surely change their behaviour very quickly, compared to vague political sentiments about rush hour bans or long term infrastructure projects?

Avatar
samuri | 8 years ago
5 likes

Big reductions in deaths of cyclists and pedestrians where HGV restrictions are put in place. Proven in a number of cities. Noteable examples being Paris and Dublin. Yes, these initiatives were matched with improved cycle infrastructure but it can hardly be dismissed as a distraction.

I've cycled in rush hour in Paris a couple of times. Never felt unsafe once despite sticking to the roads right from the Ville de Paris through to the outskirts.

Avatar
antigee | 8 years ago
1 like

think talking about "the last mile" of deliveries is a distraction, needs action but doesn't have to be rolled into the issue of safety 

suspect from reading news reports that majority of deaths in London involving sommercial vehicles are with vehicles involved in the construction industry and to suggest that moving their operations outside of peak travel times will endanger older pedestrians is at  the minimum disingenous if not decietful

we'd all love to see better designed trucks on the road but the timescale is long term 

what's wrong with looking at the current enforcement framework for commercial vehicles, operators and driving and ensuring it actually works - the reason it doesn't work is because it dates from the 1930's and is basically a rubber stamping exercise - it should come under modern Health and Safety legislation and the "pay by the load" and "just in time" "sub sub contract to the cheapest"  methodology of the construction industry needs challenging by the HSE

and Gilligan is right on one thing - banning all commercial vehicles in rush hour will probably result in pressure from constuction co's / supermarkets / other retail / to have existing restricted delivery hours restrictions torn up  - pity the poor residents who will lose their often hard fought right to undisturbed sleep

if not careful what we'll end up with is some sort of ban on commercial vehciles in peak hours with 99% excepted and a removal of delivery hours restrictions - once again vehicle operators will be the only ones happy 

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 8 years ago
6 likes

We review the ways in which lorry danger can be reduced, including the rush hour (actually, it's the morning rush hour) ban put forward by LCC and now agreed by the GLA here http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/07/21/what-transport-for-london-needs-to-do-for-....

The a.m. ban is about the least effective measure - it's largely muck shifting the problem to people walking/cycling at other times. But it could work if exemptions were made for HGVs with direct vision or retro-fitted devices to make them less of a danger to cyclists and - don't forget - pedestrians.

Avatar
SteppenHerring | 8 years ago
2 likes

Quote:

The drivers need to join a union and strike for fair and safe wages then. If not, then there's nothing that can be done. If employees eschew collective action then while I might have sympathy for them, I'm not willing to pay the price for them. 

IIf only that were possible, but it's not in the current climate. At the moment, there is no disincentive for companies using the cheapest drivers/vehicles they can get and paying them per load. A lot of the fatalities have been down to construction lorries. How about if a company (or one of their subcontractors) is involved in a serious incident then they have to stop work until it's investigated. 

If work on the latest city phallus had to come to a halt if one of their drivers was involved in a KSI then you'd soon see a shift in attitudes.  The culture of "use the cheapest" doesn't benefit the drivers and it certainly doesn't benefit the people who share the roads with them.

Having dangerous vehicles/drivers not on the roads at certain times of day is not a solution.

Avatar
ron611087 | 8 years ago
1 like

Gilligan is right.

Avatar
DingDongBell | 8 years ago
1 like

In the long term, a rush hour lorry ban may not be the ideal solution, however Andrew Gilligan avers to the fact that lorry design must be changed to make it easier for lorry drivers to see cyclists. This is a clear statement that there is an issue with lorry drivers seeing cyclists. This being true, how many cyclists travelling to work is Andrew Gilligan prepared to sacrifice until the current crop of lorries are replaced with safer lorries? The obvious answer is that this number must be zero. I venture to suggest that the majority of weekday cycle journeys are to and from work. I further venture to suggest that it is conceded that our cycle infrastructure is not fit for purpose (otherwise why are we spending money improving it?). Thus to protect life it makes complete sense (however inconvenient) by eliminating the risk to it. This means either banning cycling during the rush hour or banning inappropriate lorries (and other such vehicles) at times when cyclists are using the roads in their thousands. Not rocket science. Who saves one life saves the world entire.

Avatar
crazy-legs replied to DingDongBell | 8 years ago
0 likes

DingDongBell wrote:

Thus to protect life it makes complete sense (however inconvenient) by eliminating the risk to it. This means either banning cycling during the rush hour or banning inappropriate lorries (and other such vehicles) at times when cyclists are using the roads in their thousands. Not rocket science. Who saves one life saves the world entire.

Total rubbish. You haven't eliminated the risk to life and indeed you never can. Chances are you're more at risk of a serious head injury taking a shower or walking down the stairs to breakfast than you are riding to work and even if you remove all lorries, there's still the cars and buses to contend with.

How would you get all deliveries into and out of London? You can't replace that kind of infrastructure overnight and while a rush hour lorry ban certainly could be done I imagine you'd also have all sorts of time consuming and expensive legal challenges against it. The answer is to plough ahead with proper segregated infrastructure as quickly as possible. And by the way, all the building materials for that infrastructure? Yes, that comes in on lorries.

Avatar
Ush | 8 years ago
1 like

Makes sense to me. Tax the fuck out of the hauliers and spend the money on upgrading infrastructure: green wave cycle ways a la Cophenhagen etc.

Avatar
davidnorwich replied to Ush | 8 years ago
6 likes

Ush wrote:

Makes sense to me. Tax the fuck out of the hauliers and spend the money on upgrading infrastructure: green wave cycle ways a la Cophenhagen etc.

Wrong, taxing them and banning them at rush hour just creates more animosity and further strengthens the "them and us" and "the war on roads" that gets bandied about between cyclists and all motor vehicles. Have to agree with Gilligan, the Netherlands doesn't get people cycling by making driving harder, in fact they appear to spend far more on roads than we do, they just reserve the shortest routes for cycling and put cycle tracks on roads carrying over so many vehicles and/or above certain speeds. Seperation is key where nessessary and low speeds where not.  

Avatar
Ush replied to davidnorwich | 8 years ago
4 likes
davidnorwich wrote:

Ush wrote:

Makes sense to me. Tax the fuck out of the hauliers and spend the money on upgrading infrastructure: green wave cycle ways a la Cophenhagen etc.

Wrong, taxing them and banning them at rush hour

I expressed it too briefly, but I was not proposing doing both: I was agreeing with Gilligan that a rush-hour ban is probably unworkable.

Quote:

just creates more animosity and further strengthens the "them and us" and "the war on roads" that gets bandied about between cyclists and all motor vehicles.

Too late. We're already there. Motorists have convinced me that they think there _is_ a war, and that in order to win it cyclists have to stop waving the white flag.

Quote:

Have to agree with Gilligan, the Netherlands doesn't get people cycling by making driving harder, in fact they appear to spend far more on roads than we do,

And where will that money come from?

The Netherlands made cycling do-able by explicitly prioritizing cycling over motorized vehicle usage, with the stated intent to reduce the murder of children. Until other societies adjust their priorities they won't be replicating the outcomes of that moral and ethical standpoint. We'll be driving around like morons, sitting in traffic, searching for parking, paying vast amounts of money to get to work, destroying our health, creating noise, filling valuable city real estate with ugly cars instead of gardens and trees, destroying our health, and whining about "the war on the car".

Avatar
velodinho replied to Ush | 8 years ago
1 like

Ush wrote:

Makes sense to me. Tax the fuck out of the hauliers and spend the money on upgrading infrastructure: green wave cycle ways a la Cophenhagen etc.

You do that, and you sign up for higher delivery charges. They will pass any tax hike onto the supermarkets, construction and mail-order shopping companies;  cut the wages of the drivers or sub-contract them out to companies who only pay by delivery on aggressive deadlines. You may think that's a price worth paying to save lives, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but nothing is for free.

 

Avatar
Ush replied to velodinho | 8 years ago
1 like
velodinho wrote:

/You do that, and you sign up for higher delivery charges. They will pass any tax hike onto the supermarkets, construction and mail-order shopping companies;

That's fine. Consumers will adjust their consumption to match any price hikes, which in turn will drive down demand in those sectors, which will result in fewer of the feckers on the road interfering with me.

velodinho wrote:

; cut the wages of the drivers or sub-contract them out to companies who only pay by delivery on aggressive deadlines.

The drivers need to join a union and strike for fair and safe wages then. If not, then there's nothing that can be done. If employees eschew collective action then while I might have sympathy for them, I'm not willing to pay the price for them.

velodinho wrote:

You may think that's a price worth paying to save lives, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but nothing is for free.

I don't think it's either-or. The framework in which you have presented these decisions is one in which atomized individuals make short-term decision on narrow self-interest. There's only one direction that leads in, and it's not one which is rational or desirable IMO.

Avatar
kie7077 | 8 years ago
2 likes

I'm inclined to agree with Gilligan based on the numbers and like many cyclists I also don't limit my cycling to just rush hour anyway. Creating safer cycle routes, mandating safer lorries and fixing air quality would save vastly more lives.

Avatar
brooksby replied to kie7077 | 8 years ago
1 like

kie7077 wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with Gilligan based on the numbers and like many cyclists I also don't limit my cycling to just rush hour anyway. Creating safer cycle routes, mandating safer lorries and fixing air quality would save vastly more lives.

True, but a ban on rush hour trucks would save some lives, and can be implemented VERY quickly. Go for it, I say, at least as a start!

Latest Comments