HGV/Cyclist visibility

[CopperBrompton]

A full third of Londons HGVs are running empty

I would have expected it to be nearer half: they will be mostly delivering things to London rather than from it. A lorry, when it has delivered its load, doesn't magically disappear, so the 37 Transits will still need to drive out again just as the one artic does.

 

[Markymark]

An articulated lorry can carry 44 tonnes. A standard Transit can carry 1.2 tonnes. Show me the stats showing that 37 white van men are safer than one HGV and we'll talk.

Bit of a false dichotomy there. The alternative could be lorries forced to implement better safety equipment, eg cameras all around. If that's too much to look at for one driver then make them carry a lookout driver too.

Many things in this world require more than one person to operate it. Massive lorries in small city streets might be another.

 

[glenn forger]

I would have expected it to be nearer half: they will be mostly delivering things to London rather than from it. A lorry, when it has delivered its load, doesn't magically disappear, so the 37 Transits will still need to drive out again just as the one artic does.

Why are you being obtuse? Nobody claimed the lorries disappear, don't be silly. Logistics and route planning could be optimised, or the German scheme in the link could be adopted, that has brought the number of futile, empty trips down to nineteen per cent.

Look at the most dangerous lorries, the tippers, that account for a wildly disproportionate number of deaths and injuries, this is the business sector that happily employed a man who had been banned from driving 20 (twenty ) times. Does that sound like a properly regulated industry to you?

 

[CopperBrompton]

Why are you being obtuse?

Insults provide information about the author rather than the target.

Logistics and route planning could be optimised

Which is all to the good, but for any given level of logistical efficiency, the ratio will remain 37 Transits to one artic. I am unconvinced that substitution would make life safer for cyclists.

I would imagine whoever employed a banned driver did so unknowingly rather than "happily."

 

[glenn forger]

It's not being insulting to call you obtuse, you claim the only solution is transits when there are a myriad of alternative options like the cargo bikes trialled with great success in European capitals. It's not being rude to call you obtuse when you claim the company that employed a multiple banned driver did so unknowingly, that's breathtakingly stupid, do you think companies that employ drivers should not check on their driving history? That's the attitude that kills people. You're trying, and failing, to defend the indefensible.

Stating what you claim are "facts" when they are in reality your blinkered and irrational conclusions is not helpful, or honest.

 

[glenn forger]

The same company, Thames Materials, employed a driver who killed a taxi occupant in Chiswick. The lorry driver was charged with driving under the influence of drugs.

 

[CopperBrompton]

That's even more alarming in some ways.

It certainly points to a serious failing somewhere. How was this driver allowed to remain in possession of his driving licence after being banned?

 

[CopperBrompton]

Glenn, your subsequent post also reflects on you rather than me. I have said none of the things you are attributing to me.

 

[CopperBrompton]

If that's too much to look at for one driver then make them carry a lookout driver too.

I'd be all in favour of that. I'm sure in the old days, lorries had to have a banksman when they reversed, and it would seem a relatively small extra expense to have one on board.

 

[glenn forger]

You said, quoting verbatim

"Which is all to the good, but for any given level of logistical efficiency, the ratio will remain 37 Transits to one artic. I am unconvinced that substitution would make life safer for cyclists."

Which, as I've just demonstrated, is nonsense. It's a straw man deviation, you've plucked that "fact" out of thin air. Do you see now?

 

[CopperBrompton]

"Which is all to the good, but for any given level of logistical efficiency, the ratio will remain 37 Transits to one artic. I am unconvinced that substitution would make life safer for cyclists."

Which, as I've just demonstrated, is nonsense.

You have demonstrated no such thing. Feel free to do so, though, with a post about the logistical feasibility and costs of swapping one artic for however many cargo bikes are needed to deliver 44 tonnes ...

 

[Profpointy]

You said, quoting verbatim

"Which is all to the good, but for any given level of logistical efficiency, the ratio will remain 37 Transits to one artic. I am unconvinced that substitution would make life safer for cyclists."

Which, as I've just demonstrated, is nonsense. It's a straw man deviation, you've plucked that "fact" out of thin air. Do you see now?

I don't quite follow your point - unless you're just arguing for the sake of it.
The fact "pulled out of the air" seems to 1.2 x 37 = 44.4
I'm not sure "straw man" means what you thin it means either

 

[glenn forger]

There you go again, you stick to straw man arguments like poo sticks to a blanket. There are a myriad of alternatives, as I said just half an hour ago. Why reduce the argument to absurd straw man pointless rubbish? There are alternatives that don't even involve swapping to other delivery methods, a daytime ban on HGVs for instance. Instead of considering these you stick resolutely to your blinkered, unyielding stance.

During Operation Safeway three quarters of the HGVs on Londons roads were breaking the law in some way, seventeen lorries were considered so dangerous they were immediately impounded. The freight industry has an appalling record of road safety and remain firmly opposed to stricter regulation.

HGVs are just four per cent of traffic and responsible for over half of all cyclist fatalities. Do you think cyclists suddenly become more reckless around lorries or does another possibility flicker through the windmills of your mind?

 

[glenn forger]

Speaking as someone with 30+ years driving experience (cars), and rathr more than that cycling, I'd say lorry driers as a group are signifantly more skilled, an on balance more considerate that drivers in general.

While not doubting your personal experience, can you explain the utterly disproportionate number of fatalities these "considerate" drivers cause?




.
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Catriona Patel was drunk and chatting on a mobile.

The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns had faulty eyesight (the police didn't even bother to discover this until the same driver killed another woman.)

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile. The police decided to charge him with..nothing.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Andrew McNicoll failed to notice him and side swiped him.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

That doesn't suggest cautious behaviour by lorry drivers to me.

 

[Dan B]

An articulated lorry can carry 44 tonnes. A standard Transit can carry 1.2 tonnes. Show me the stats showing that 37 white van men are safer than one HGV and we'll talk.

Um. I'm not an expert on these things, but I was under the impression that a 44 tonne lorry weighs about 15 tonnes empty?