Join the debate make comments etc
I like the sky cycle idea, with raised cycleways that run above the traffic.
Never likely to happen mind but it’d completely segregate the cyclists from the traffic, and would make cycling in the city more accessible and enjoyable.
That Mike Cavenett of the LCC is a complete tool for suggesting that wearing any form of protective clothing is an “absord” idea
This is what I have submitted:
Me to Auntie:
As an LGV driver who spent four months spending every working day in London, I can honestly say that many of the suggestions above would not work. The only one which is a workable solution is the elevated cycleways.Deliveries in cities and towns are a fact of life and a requirement of the way in which the country does business. Delivering to out of town warehouses for onward shipment could work, except in the case of certain cargoes. Take insulated wall and roof panels for example. Special care has to be taken with this kind of load to ensure it’s not damaged in transit but is not at risk of moving. Special restraints are required.
Large mass consignments are also an issue, an electric or hybridised LGV has weight penalties. Construction projects require steel, which is often supplied and used in lengths of 12 meters or more. Only an articulated vehicle can handle this length.
Then there is the concern of shipping a full articulated vehicle’s delivery in separate smaller vehicles. If I deliver a full load for London on a 40ft trailer to an outside warehouse, which is then broken down for onward travel to two or more drops on smaller vehicles, that would be two or more drivers who could suffer a lapse in concentration, causing an accident.
Using drivers who are more familiar with the road layout is also a concern for me as no matter how hard you try, you will always drive better on roads you don’t know than ones where you think you know what is coming around the corner.
Leaving aside the things that cyclists do to put themselves at risk, the current range of commercial vehicles has evolved to suit our needs and provide the optimum solution. In terms of fiscal economy, fuel economy and time economy, the artic is the vehicle of choice for many transport operations because it can move large amounts of freight using minimal road space, minimal amounts of natural resources and minimum manpower.
Perhaps instead of pumping millions of pounds in to Bojo’s little train set, they could pump millions of pounds into freight tunnels under the city? Two lanes in each direction reserved soley for freight vehicles with an O-Licence on the screen? That would keep trucks away from cars, vans, pedestrians and cyclists right to the “final mile” to borrow a phrase from Royal Mail and at the same time help us truck drivers by keeping idiots on bikes, ■■■■■ in taxis and suicidal van drivers out of our way!
For other towns and cities, like Luton & Dunstable, Oxford and Cambridge for example, allowing LGVs to use the guided busways would also reduce the pressure on roads for other road users.
The one other thing that needs to be remembered is that we pay a lot of money to use the roads. My gaffer pays around £10,000 a month in road tax alone to put our vehicles on Her Majesties highways. Cyclists and pedestrians, (and bloody Prius drivers) dont pay a penny. Surely we have a greater right to be there given that we have paid for the privilege?
GasGas:
Join the debate make comments etc
Wish I could but I’m worn out just posting on here, might be worth getting the BBC to look at the threads on this forum to see what the soldiers on the front line think(both cyclists and HGV drivers and those that do both).
Dipper_Dave:
GasGas:
Join the debate make comments etcWish I could but I’m worn out just posting on here, might be worth getting the BBC to look at the threads on this forum to see what the soldiers on the front line think(both cyclists and HGV drivers and those that do both).
TNUK:
Note to Media… copying or use of quotes from any part of this bulletin Board is only permitted with the members permission and credit given to TruckNet UK
As a journalist who deals with this types of disclaimers all the time I can assure you that it is far too much hassle when the TNUK sniffer dogs will post up the link to the BBC website almost as soon as the article is up.
Dipper_Dave:
Wish I could but I’m worn out just posting on here, might be worth getting the BBC to look at the threads on this forum to see what the soldiers on the front line think.
You want the BBC to look on this forum to see truck drivers refer to killed cyclists as squashed and flattened 
That’s really gonna help you lot.
Think you maybe stuck on one post from a different thread, but opinions vary from the sublime to the ridiculous, amongst all the twoing and frowing theres often some nuggets of wisdom mixed in as is the remit of any forum that allows for some freedom of expression.
Either way it matters little we either look after cyclists and adapt to their style or face a backlash and restrictions forced upon us, some are welcome but others may be harder to swallow.
Time to take the high ground, give them room, check our mirrors and look out for the more vunerable road users amongst us, after all thats what being a professional is all about.
Theres no magic cure for the nutters out there but together we can make the roads a better place by a mixture of mutual understanding and realisation that at the end of the day we are all just trying to make progress.
More mirrors on bikes, more co-operation from motorised vehicles, more training or just simply a bit more tolerance of each other.
Who’s to blame carries no comfort when a family member is lost, we have to work together, we have to overcome the arrogance instilled on the cycling community by those we place in charge who have deemed cycling as the way forward even if doing so they have underestimated the dangers and limitations our road infrastructure has in accommodating all modes of transport in an ever decreasing roadspace.
But I’m waffling now so lets see what happens: I predict a rush hour ban is viable in the short term it won’t be a cure all (but will take some pressure off) and a better infrastructure for cyclists in the long term, shockingly this may include utilizing some pavement space as cycle paths rather than just painting a blue line on the road and seeing what happens.
There also needs to be more accountability for cyclists whether this is through self policing or some form of identification number on each bike so they cannot just arrogantly presume the rules the rest of us abide by don’t apply to them.
Dipper_Dave:
But I’m waffling now so lets see what happens: I predict a rush hour ban is viable in the short term it won’t be a cure all (but will take some pressure off)
It would also leave multi-drop drivers with six hours to get in, do their drops and get out before they are breaching a rush hour ban. I used to do 6-9 drops a day in London and struggled to get it done in six hours, god knows how the TNT boys get it done.
I agree with your above post wholeheartedly apart from
Dipper_Dave:
There also needs to be more accountability for cyclists whether this is through self policing or some form of identification number on each bike so they cannot just arrogantly presume the rules the rest of us abide by don’t apply to them.
Bicycles are stolen/swapped and changed hands more then anything, a database is not feasible at all.
I remember as a youngster in dockyards we had a couple of bikes us youths had to do the butty runs on, no way could you keep track on who would be committing any offences.
Any student house has a duty bike to go down the off licence for Strongbow.
Do we have to have little 3 years olds trike on a data base, it’s a cycle after all.
Kids use bikes for newspaper rounds going to school, they ain’t going to register their bike.