Boardman vs. Boris: HGV Ban

Shep73 wrote:

Instead of cyclists blaming everyone else, may be they need to look at why accidents happen.

I have done. The answer is 'terrible road design' 'bad driving' and 'lack of enforcement of the laws of the road'.

Shep73 wrote:

It's all too easy in this country to blame everyone else instead of people taking responsibility for their own actions.

Indeed. That's pretty much what motorists and the road lobby do.

Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

It's quite possible to be a motorist, a cyclist, a pedestrian AND a user of public transport. Just because you use one mode of transport it doesn't exclude you from using any other.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I'm not defending the guy's rather idiotic (or trolling) comments but it's possible to be both you know. I'll have driven about 12k miles and cycled 2.5k miles by the end of this year

VeloPeo wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I'm not defending the guy's rather idiotic (or trolling) comments but it's possible to be both you know. I'll have driven about 12k miles and cycled 2.5k miles by the end of this year

Well, I'm overstating it a bit. But personally I'm mostly just 'not a motorist' and I get tired of people claiming to speak 'as a cyclist' because they do a bit of off-roading or occasionally cycle for sport or leisure when their main means of transport for practical purposes is a car and their attitudes and sense of self-interest are consequently those of a motorist above all.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

VeloPeo wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I'm not defending the guy's rather idiotic (or trolling) comments but it's possible to be both you know. I'll have driven about 12k miles and cycled 2.5k miles by the end of this year

Well, I'm overstating it a bit. But personally I'm mostly just 'not a motorist' and I get tired of people claiming to speak 'as a cyclist' because they do a bit of off-roading or occasionally cycle for sport or leisure when their main means of transport for practical purposes is a car and their attitudes and sense of self-interest are consequently those of a motorist above all.

Well Considering it is a 180 mile journey I take for football, and it involves going with other people. I don't think my bikes would fit us all on. Juding by your comment, I'm not a cyclist because I only do it for sport/pleasure compared to someone who does it because they have too. Utter rubbish. I look forward to you showing me the way at the Forest of Dean/Quantocks in the near future.

Oh and when I ride on the road, I treat others including motorist how I expect to be treated.

@Shep73

I'm not sure what the refence to the Quantocks is about (I gather that's somewhere in England - which I think is the country outside the M25, a strange faraway land of which I know little).

But it just gets my goat to hear slightly pious lectures on 'personal responsibility' when the fundamental issue is the lack of such responsibility shown by too many of those who choose to bring dangerous items into my city (very often entirely unnecessarily). The primary responsibility lies with those who wield dangerous weapons on public streets, and anyone who does that is on thin ice for giving lectures to others about 'responsibility'.

You may well be a brilliant cyclist in terms of fitness, speed, technique, whatever, but if you drive into London I don't accept you are really speaking as a 'cyclist' when expressing opinions about the conflict between different modes of transport on the streets.

I do happen to think it should ultimately be down to road planners to reduce the burden of care placed on motorists, as that group are never all going to behave 'responsibily' becuase they are human beings and hence imperfect. But in the meantime, the lectures need to be directed at those who create the danger.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

@Shep73

I'm not sure what the refence to the Quantocks is about (I gather that's somewhere in England - which I think is the country outside the M25, a strange faraway land of which I know little).

But it just gets my goat to hear slightly pious lectures on 'personal responsibility' when the fundamental issue is the lack of such responsibility shown by too many of those who choose to bring dangerous items into my city (very often entirely unnecessarily). The primary responsibility lies with those who wield dangerous weapons on public streets, and anyone who does that is on thin ice for giving lectures to others about 'responsibility'.

You may well be a brilliant cyclist in terms of fitness, speed, technique, whatever, but if you drive into London I don't accept you are really speaking as a 'cyclist' when expressing opinions about the conflict between different modes of transport on the streets.

I do happen to think it should ultimately be down to road planners to reduce the burden of care placed on motorists, as that group are never all going to behave 'responsibily' becuase they are human beings and hence imperfect. But in the meantime, the lectures need to be directed at those who create the danger.

Road furniture and design effects most users, but motor cyclists and pedal cyclists are more vulnerable so surely we should ride to the conditions and road layout.
Like I said it's all too easy to point the finger rather than look at what a user group can do itself to prevent accidents. Going up the inside of buses and lorries is just suicidal and jumping red lights is not excusable just because we don't have an engine. I'm not saying it excuses idiots in cars that shouldn't even be on the road but are safety begins with our own actions.

And yes the Quantocks is in Sommerset. Very nice part of the world with brilliant XC trails and downhills that boil brake fluid.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I just don't believe in blaming other people for everything. Cyclist need to take responsibility for their actions as well. I take it it was the trails fault a mountain biker died at Swinley the weekend. May be all mountain bike trails should be sponge.

Shep73 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I just don't believe in blaming other people for everything. Cyclist need to take responsibility for their actions as well. I take it it was the trails fault a mountain biker died at Swinley the weekend. May be all mountain bike trails should be sponge.

I believe in blaming those responsible. And in the vast majority of cases that would be the motorist and the road traffic engineers (and the wider society that contributes to their behaviour). Not only do the statistics demonstrate that the motorist is far more likely to be the one who caused the accident, there's also the basic point that the motor vehicle is the thing that creates the risk, not the bike.

Cyclists (and pedestrians) already take the consequences of their mistakes because they are the vulnerable parties, the problem is that motorists mostly don't. So why do you chose to bang on about the least culpable and most vulnerable party?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shep73 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shep73 wrote:

As a keen cyclist.

Er...you just admitted you are in fact a driver. Don't try and speak as something you aren't.

I just don't believe in blaming other people for everything. Cyclist need to take responsibility for their actions as well. I take it it was the trails fault a mountain biker died at Swinley the weekend. May be all mountain bike trails should be sponge.

I believe in blaming those responsible. And in the vast majority of cases that would be the motorist and the road traffic engineers (and the wider society that contributes to their behaviour). Not only do the statistics demonstrate that the motorist is far more likely to be the one who caused the accident, there's also the basic point that the motor vehicle is the thing that creates the risk, not the bike.

Cyclists (and pedestrians) already take the consequences of their mistakes because they are the vulnerable parties, the problem is that motorists mostly don't. So why do you chose to bang on about the least culpable and most vulnerable party?

Yes we are vulnerable but we also have a duty of care for ourselves, as a motorcyclist as well I would tell everybody the same thing. Treat car and van drivers as idiots and you'll stay alive. It does seem though it's all too easy to blame others. I wouldn't even filter past lorries on a motorbike.

Shep73 wrote:

Instead of cyclists blaming everyone else, may be they need to look at why accidents happen. A cyclists goes up the inside of a lorry and ends up getting crushed, what do they expect. It doesn't hurt to sit back and wait in the traffic like everyone else does. One of the cyclists killed in london was down the left and the nasty lorry had his right hand indicator going. Just may be the lorry has to swerve out to make the right turn so don't go down the inside.

As someone who drives to London a fair bit for football, I am astounding by the idiocy and impatience some cyclists show, it won't kill them to wait.
As for the blue lanes and Boris bikes. Both should be abolished, it it does is encourage complacency and people to ride in one of the busiest cities in the world with out any head protection, which is clearly needed when you see half of them weaving all over the place.

As a keen cyclist I think commuter cyclists leave a lot to be desired. It's all too easy in this country to blame everyone else instead of people taking responsibility for their own actions.

We need to understand exactly why people ride up the left hand side of vehicles. Could it possibly be because that's where the road shows them to be? Cycle infrastructure in this country is so bad that where it does exist cyclists are told not to use it because it's dangerous! THIS is the problem that needs to be sorted out. Is it fair to paint roads to show everyone where cyclists 'should' be and then criticise them for obeying the 'rules' by being there? Create high-quality integrated segregation for cyclists that doesn't prioritise motor traffic and people will use it and be less likely to die whilst doing so.

Neil753 wrote:

The success of the barriers is interesting; I'm a firm believer that a couple of bollards is the most cost effective way to turn a residential street into a "quiet way". String a few of them together and you've got a network.

I tend to think the most useful item for making cycling safer and more popular is not high viz or a helmet, but the bollard. Stick a few good quality separated lanes on the wider of the busy main direct routes as well and cycling becomes a viable option for a lot more people.

My preferred urban transport policy is a load of bollards. Which is only a few letters different from what we have at the moment, so its not that big a change, surely?

gazer117 wrote:

Why not just put a ban on lorries using the same roads as CS2 during the said hours, and leave other roads unaffected ?

.

I don't mean to pick on you, because this is indeed a serious issue, but for the purpose of stimulating debate....

What exactly do you want lorry drivers to do? Do you want us to all flood into London after the rush hour has finished, and just in time to mix it with pensioners and young mothers with pre-school children, all choosing to cycle once the rush hour has finished? And all this upheaval just so you can improve your PB to the office?

I know there isn't an equally direct alternative to CS2, but what's to stop you from just setting your alarm clock to wake you up a little earlier, and using that extra time to ride a route well away from trucks? Probably a lot nicer, and definitely easier on your lungs, from a pollution perspective. Are you worried you might get lost? Would the slightly longer distance be too much for you? Is it the blue paint?

Why not try a few alternative routes, and then pick one you like.

Neil753 wrote:

gazer117 wrote:

Why not just put a ban on lorries using the same roads as CS2 during the said hours, and leave other roads unaffected ?

.

I don't mean to pick on you, because this is indeed a serious issue, but for the purpose of stimulating debate....

Sorry but your comment is rhetorical, ridiculous and trolling. Gazer didn't say anything about his PB or how long his ride is or even if he is in London to 'try a few alternative routes' (According to his profile he is based in Wales). As far as you or I know he doesn't even ride to work.

Also, I may be ignorant or have not seen some research done, but since when do pensioners and young families only leave the house after rush hour as if they specifically wait for 9am before apologetically creeping out their front door? What about the evening rush hour anyway?

And, seeing as you didn't answer his point I'll answer yours - Gazer suggests that during rush hours HGVs use different routes. Not that they aren't on the roads at all in rush hours. Whether it's a decent suggestion or not is irrelevant, you just plain ignored his actual point just to be condescending and take the piss. Some of your other posts have been reasonable and informative but that one just wasn't.

Goldfever4 wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

gazer117 wrote:

Why not just put a ban on lorries using the same roads as CS2 during the said hours, and leave other roads unaffected ?

.

I don't mean to pick on you, because this is indeed a serious issue, but for the purpose of stimulating debate....

Sorry but your comment is rhetorical, ridiculous and trolling. Gazer didn't say anything about his PB or how long his ride is or even if he is in London to 'try a few alternative routes' (According to his profile he is based in Wales). As far as you or I know he doesn't even ride to work.

Also, I may be ignorant or have not seen some research done, but since when do pensioners and young families only leave the house after rush hour as if they specifically wait for 9am before apologetically creeping out their front door? What about the evening rush hour anyway?

And, seeing as you didn't answer his point I'll answer yours - Gazer suggests that during rush hours HGVs use different routes. Not that they aren't on the roads at all in rush hours. Whether it's a decent suggestion or not is irrelevant, you just plain ignored his actual point just to be condescending and take the piss. Some of your other posts have been reasonable and informative but that one just wasn't.

.
I quantified my post, which was aimed at "stimulating debate", rather than specifically questioning Gazer's circumstances, of which I obviously know nothing at all, as you point out.

I admit I haven't done research on pensioner movements, but took my queue from this week's HOC cycling committee meeting, in which research by the RTA showed that pensioners do indeed tend to get out in the period immediately following the morning rush hour. I haven't done any research on the movements of mums with young children either, but my daughter takes two of my grandchildren out shopping in the trailer bike, immediately after dropping the oldest one at school. So, if there was a peak hour lorry ban, she would be out on the streets at the exact moment the HGV "rush" would start. I'm making an assumption that this would be a common scenario, especially since many shops don't actually open until 9 am, so many cyclists going shopping on a weekday would also be affected.

Similarly, children get picked up from school at the very time HGV drivers would be "rushing" to get out of town before incurring a penalty and, as we know from the figures, pedestrian deaths are an even bigger problem than cyclist deaths.

It's worth remembering that any "rush " of HGVs, twice a day, as a result of peak hours bans, would raise the level of small particles at street level at the very moments that pensioners were out in the morning, and children were out in the afternoon, potentially contributing long term to a death rate that is already at around 4000 per year in London alone.

Gazer specifically suggests HGVs use a different route to CS2 but, since there is arguably no easy alternative to that particular route, I assumed he actually meant a peak time restriction instead. If Gazer was indeed suggesting that HGVs use an alternative route, I would have pointed out the impossibility of such an arrangement, due to the narrowness and layout of nearby streets, and the effect a tortuous route would have on residents' health due to the increased pollution created.

As I have said, I used Gazer's post to stimulate debate, by asking a serious of short (but provocative) questions that might prompt at least some users of CS2, to perhaps consider some alternatives.

The 10,000 cyclists that have already taken part in the "Changing Places" scheme, show that many cyclists are keen to see things from a differnet perspective, and I'd like to think that hgv drivers on cycling forums, and indeed cyclists on hgv forums, not only stimulate debate, but help us all to to stay safe on our busy roads. If we just waited for the government to get their finger out, rather than take at least some responsibilty ourselves, by choosing quieter routes for instance, then substantial changes for the common good would take decades.

Apologies if you were offended in any way.

thebungle wrote:

Neil> I disagree with your opinions on other matters at times but I have to say I'm 100% with you on this one.

To the poster who asked about driving hours; without going into the minute detail a driver has the following;

9 hrs of driving time per day, with the introduction of the digital tacho any movement of the wheel is classified as 'driving', a mandatory break has to be taken every 4.5hrs with uninturrupted rest, once you have had your rest you only have another 4.5 hrs left of driving time.

There is also time during the day for 'other work', this will include time at depot for paperwork/refuelling etc. as well as unloading and loading.

So, 15 minutes for daily checks and paperwork, 4.5 hrs of driving to a destination, 45 minute rest, 45 mins to unload (on average), 4.5 hrs return drive to depot and 30 minutes to refuel, complete paperwork etc.

That very simple day is over 11 hours and that's without accounting for delays in being unloaded or loaded, that truck who is 'only' held up for 10 minutes in traffic could easily end up missing a delivery slot and subsequently lose well over an hour in waiting for a new slot.

Note, and I can't rememember off the top of my head, there is a maximum amount of driving allowed within a two week period as well as a minimum amount of rest.

Clear as mud!

I'm a 'part time' HGVist as it's a secondary part of my job so my details may be a bit on the sketchy side.

Cheers for that, I appreciate your support. Passengers on planes, trains and coaches would be rightly concerned about operator tiredness, but hardly anyone seems to grasp the idea that tired hgv drivers could be be just as dangerous.

In answer to your question, drivers can drive up to 90 hours in any fortnight, in addition to their other duties, and up to 56 hours driving in any weekly period. Far too long, in my opinion.

Jimbonic wrote:

I may be getting old. But, where did he suggest that they would have to work "funny" shifts? I believe he's asking for a ban at peak times (7.00-9.00 and 4.30-6.30? something like that?). Is that particularly difficult to achieve, given the limited hours to which truck drivers have to adhere? 9.00 (or 9.30, if you like) to 4.30 is 7.5 hours. I don't know. What hours do truck drivers work?

It may not be workable as a plan. But I would think that truck driver shift patterns would be amongst the easier of the challenges to overcome.

Although drivers' hours are strictly controlled, many people would be surprised by the actual limits. Drivers can, and are often required to, work up to 15 hour shifts, with as little as a 9 hour rest period between those shifts.

According to RoSPA's fatigue policy statement, driver fatigue is currently responsible for up to one quarter of all fatal and serious accidents. RoSPA identify the critical risk times as 2am-6am and 2pm-4pm. In other words, the very times that drivers might be forced to work, if peak period restrictions are enforced.

Channelling lorries through "timing gates" inevitably makes things potentially competitive, and increasing the risk of "bunching", queueing, speeding and pollution, and making the whole supply chain more expensive, costs that have to be absorbed by consumers, many of whom are already facing extreme hardship.

Additionally, the health implications of shiftwork, and especially shiftwork where duty and rest periods vary from shift to shift, are well known and place a huge burden on both the NHS and the wider society. These health implications would have an impact not just on drivers, but all workers within that supply chain.

Although I have a "foot in both camps", being both a cyclist and a HGV driver, it does annoy me that suggestions to restrict drivers even further seem to come from people who don't really understand the implications of changes they're proposing, particularly since a visit to any transport cafe or motorway service might provide an indication that drivers are already on the absolute limit of what is possible, in terms of a "work/life balance".

So my invitation to Mr Boardman remains; to replicate the sort of working hours likely to be faced by drivers if these restrictions are imposed, perhaps for just a week, and then to assess whether he still feels safe enough to drive.

I didn't know that (maximum driving time up to 15 hours). Is that in one hit? Or are there stipulated breaks? Given that the average punter is recommended to take a break every 2 hours - motorway signs, company H&S advice, etc. - that would seem a little foolish. I would have thought, then, that one simple way to increase road safety overall (for everyone) would be to reduce that 15 hour figure. I appreciate that hauliers may be resistant to that. But, wouldn't your average HGV driver welcome it? I take that last question from your point about drivers at transport cafes, etc.

It's interesting to compare those HGV hours vs., say, the London Underground staff, who are allowed to work no more than 11 hours in 24, and have to have an 8 hour break (if I remember correctly).

Your stipulation that drivers would be forced to drive in the hours of 2.00-4.00 and 14.00-16.00 is an assumption. It would fall upon the hauliers, retailers, construction industry, etc. to ensure that drivers and other road users are not put at risk by working at unsafe times and with insufficient rest. I don't think it's unworkable, just that it would come up against severe resistance - see Kate Gibbs comments in the article you quote.

So, in summary, I won't hold my breath!