Since our last post we have had our requested information from Transport for London about their Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme (FORS) and the (ab)use of warning stickers. We assess this response and analyse the new HGVs designed to be less dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists and showcased last week.
The TfL Response
We have been informed that:
- FORS have emailed operators to say that the regular audits of their compliance with FORS standards will include checking that they have not put stickers on the wrong vehicles. If they have, they could lose their FORS accreditation – which would stop them getting TfL contracts and have some other disadvantages. (We don’t know if this extends to replacing the old stickers with new ones on appropriate vehicles.)
Well, those audits haven’t swung into action yet. Along with the FORS members using stickers on vehicles which should never have had them (minibuses, short lorries with low cabs, taxis and cars) illustrated, a short period of time in inner London today (27/02/2015) reveals these FORS members with stickers on the wrong vehicles:
UK Power Network (positioning off-side wing mirror properly might help)
FloGas London Borough of Brent
And this photo of a car belonging to FORS member Apex Lifts was sent to me:
We also have the problem of TfL’s own vehicles working for London Underground and London Buses (shown here):
TfL is not actually a member of their FORS, but should it be so difficult for someone in TfL to expect it to behave in accordance with the FORS criteria for stickers?
2. Our contact couldn’t give us a URL on FORS’ website to refer operators to. (Some people working for FORS members, most obviously transport planners/engineers working for London Boroughs, want to be able to refer colleagues in fleet management to the FORS criteria for stickers).
3. Our contact pointed out – as we knew already – that FORS has no jurisdiction over non-FORS members, who can buy stickers from other suppliers. (Incidentally, that’s a good reason for this issue to have not arisen in the first place). However, members of the public could refer operators to a FORS website explaining why FORS is now trying to make sure that no stickers should be on any vehicles other than buses or HGVs, and that even on those vehicles the appropriate wording should be used. Above all, the reasons for this – particularly not having stickers of any sort on minibuses, cars, and taxis – must be explained, as most freight operators won’t understand otherwise.
Our view is that if TfL is serious about cycling as a mode of transport, and the safety of road users near lorries, this should be done.
Meanwhile here are some non-FORS members spotted today in a short period of time in inner London with vehicles which should not have stickers:
A Tyrefix-UK van being tailgated by:
A Brandon Tool Hire lorry with apparently adequate nearside wing mirror and low cab, and a minibus. And some time ago one of my favourites (apologies if stickers have since been removed):
ALS Environmental
As stated in our previous post, this is not the main issue with regard to lorry safety in London – but it is indicative of Transport for London’s readiness – or lack of it – to tackle this and other safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists.
Safer construction industry vehicles?…
Last week a major exhibition showcased new lorry designs for the construction industry. There is a particular problem with construction industry HGVs: vehicles like tipper trucks have been disproportionately involved in cyclist deaths compared to other HGVs, and TfL has taken some steps towards addressing this through support for CLOCS.
Below you can see just some of the vehicle designs which make it easier for lorry drivers to be able to see around them and – often less remarked on – smaller gaps between the vehicle body and the road surface, reducing the chances of pedestrians and cyclists being dragged under lorry wheels.
O’Donovan waste Mercedes-Benz design
Smaller blind spots
So does this indicate that TfL are properly addressing the HGV safety problem? A lot of what was said is encouraging: Sir Peter Hendy (Commissioner of Transport for London) supported law enforcement to stop unfit drivers, “relentlessly hounding” bad operators, committing to reducing motor traffic capacity on new highway infrastructure for cyclists, looking at changing the concentration of freight in the morning rush hour (while aware of the problem that this can be a muck-shifting exercise which pushes freight on to people outside these hours), and above all:
“TfL are working towards a point where we’ll say if you want to work on one of our sites it’s got to be one of these – we’re not very far away from this. We’ll do everything we can to make this happen.”
Other speakers showed an awareness of issues beyond the traditional highway authority thought envelope: moving the construction industry’s health and safety focus on to road risk, increased rigour in procurement criteria for freight operators, pushing for more sophisticated technology on vehicles, both new and for retro-fit, retiming lorry delivery, etc
All of which looks good: moves in the right direction prompted not least by the activities by our friends and partners Cynthia Barlow (Roadpeace) and Kate Cairns (See Me Save Me) Unfortunately, there are important problems to be considered, and our duty is to do just that.
The first problem is specifically about construction industry vehicles (such as tipper trucks). When considering Sir Peter Hendy’s comments above, we have a commitment towards a requirement for the safest lorry design to be a feature of HGVs on construction sites operating for TfL sites: what about all the others in London? And when will this be required?
…and lorries in general
We also note that in the concluding comments to the conference by CLOCS chairman Brian Weatherly, he said, “When will CLOCS’ work be completed? Volvo has Vision 2020 – no one will be killed by a Volvo HGV in 2020. It would be an excellent goal for everyone in CLOCS to adopt. If we could achieve that we would know CLOCS has done its job.”
Here at RDRF we have something of a general problem with Volvo. We point out the adverse effects on other road users of drivers feeling that they have to less to worry about because of increased crashworthiness of their vehicle. And Volvo have historically been synonymous with greater car crashworthiness.
But let’s just focus on events last year: for this sorry story of blocking the introduction of safer lorries read this in The Times. Essentially, under pressure from Renault and, yes, Volvo, the French and Swedish governments blocked manufacturers from implementing more aerodynamic lorry designs.
Such redesign also benefits cyclist and pedestrian safety by having lower cabs with more driver visibility, and skirting and/or lower vehicle and cab bodies to reduce chances of being dragged under lorry wheels.
Since these lorries won’t be on the roads now until after 2020, one does rather wonder about Volvo’s Vision 2020.
An aside: The recent history of lorry design
At this point I should refer to a meeting I had at Transport for London (with my colleague from the London Boroughs Cycling Officers Group). This was at a time (I think 2002) before The Times started pushing for cyclist safety, when we had to fight hard to get anybody to take notice of the HGVs/Cyclists issue. We were met by, among others, a freight industry representative, who explained the 10-year cycle of lorry design, manufacture, sale and use.
Now, it was a while ago, and I may have got the details wrong (and they may have been inaccurately conveyed to us) but my understanding was this: Lorry manufacturers take about ten years to design, implement and manufacture a model, and this will then be bought and used by operators for another ten years before they buy the next model. We were told – as I recall – that the next design/manufacture cycle would start in 2010. New models would come in then, and by 2020 almost all HGVs would have the safer and more aerodynamic characteristics shown above.
But they didn’t. The episode recounted above – where RDRF joined others to lobby the EU to allow (that is just allow, let alone make mandatory) safer lorry design – indicates that the cycle we are now in ignored all the evidence about the importance of lorry design for cyclist and pedestrian safety in the 1990s and early 2000s, as well as the desire of operators to have more fuel-efficient vehicles.
The HGV problem in context
We have to say something else about the HGV issue. There is a specific problem of safety posed by HGVs for other road users, and in urban areas this is a particular problem for pedestrians and cyclists. I have dealt with the various ways this problem should be addressed here as follows:
We have been working on the safety issue for cyclists and pedestrians posed by HGVs, specifically in cities, since the early 1990s. There is a range of solutions which require implementing, namely:
Highway engineering which could eliminate potential collisions of all severities, and also do so with collisions involving all motor vehicles and create safer space. This is restricted to specific locations, and is less relevant for pedestrians, so attention is also needed to engineering HGVs so that drivers can be aware of who and what is around them. HGVs should also be engineered so that it becomes far more difficult (or impossible) for pedestrians or cyclists to be crushed, by skirting HGVs or otherwise reducing the gap between road surface and the body of the vehicle. Safety standards on HGVs can also be enforced by the police. Swift and high quality post-crash investigation, and the threat of deterrent sentencing for unsafe HGV operation are required. Construction sites and operators can be subject to appropriate procurement procedures to push forward relevant measures. Additional technologies such as black box recorders and pedestrian/cyclist-activated vehicle braking systems should be introduced.
HGV driver training is necessary, although low down the list of priorities. We are believers in cycle training, but the essential issue is reducing danger at source – from HGVs (particularly construction industry HGVs) which are currently unfit for purpose in a city. Not all of the million people who sometimes cycle in London can be reached or – even if experienced and careful – expected to avoid HGVs that hit them from behind or overtake and turn left. Even where a cyclist or pedestrian is careless or ignorant (as we all are on occasion) they do not deserve to be punished with death or serious injury. After all, motorists have their carelessness accommodated by highway and vehicle engineering – why shouldn’t cyclists or pedestrians?
For further discussion see the post by Bill Chidley here with RDRF comments below.
As at least half the cyclists killed in London are now killed in incidents where they go under the wheels of HGVs, plainly this is a specific issue for sustainable transport and road danger reduction in urban areas and London in particular. The relatively small number of vehicles, and the professional nature of their drivers, mean that there is less excuse for not dealing with this problem. However, it is worth remembering its place within the spectrum of problems, even specifically for cyclists.
The table is based on Table 1 of TfL’s current Cycle Safety Action Plan: Ratio of cyclist KSI (Killed and Serious Injury) injury and collision involvement by mode share (2010-12)
| Other vehicle involved | Average yearly number of KSI collisions involving a cyclist (2010 to 2012) | Ratio of involvement to mode share | %age involvement |
| Car | 1140 | 0.9 | 72 |
| Light Goods Vehicles | 176 | 0.9 | 11.1 |
| Taxi/ private hire | 75 | 4 | 4.7 |
| Medium and Heavy Goods Vehicles (over 3.5T) | 74 | 1.4 | 4.7 |
| Bus | 72 | 2.3 | 4.5 |
| Motorcycle | 51 | 1.4 | 3.2 |
| TOTAL KSIs on average per year 2010 – 2012 | 1588 |
Source: STATS19 and Department for Transport data
Whoops! When I copied out this table above I thought something looked bit weird – namely the number of KSIs per year is about 3 times bigger than it should be . A look at the Pedal Cycle Casualties fact sheet produced annually by TfL look at says that KSIs in 2010 were 467, in 2011 were 571, and in 2012 were 671. That gives an average of 570 per year, not 1588.
I’ll be contacting TfL to mention this. I find it interesting that nobody else seems to have spotted this.
However what I am really interested in here stays the same – namely the small proportion of cyclist KSI’s which involve the two heavier freight classifications. Interesting that nobody else has picked this up. (RD)
UPDATE: 16TH March.
I received this e-mail from TfL:
“I have received some more detail on table 1 in the Cycle Safety Action Plan. The numbers shown are for the total number of 2010-2012 and not the average as it is currently mis-labelled. The numbers have been checked and they are correct, because the data is at the vehicle level they differ from collision or casualty figures. The correct title should be “Number of KSI collisions involving a cyclist (2010 to 2012)”. I will arrange for this to be corrected on the published pdf to prevent further confusion.
Thank you very much for highlighting this error and helping to ensure the best data possible is available.”
We are happy to help – it’s sad that nobody else noticed.
The fact is that less than 5% of cyclist KSIs (98% of which are not deaths) involve lorries. A similar fraction exists for slight injuries, and probably near misses. (The proportions for pedestrians are even lower). Lorry danger is therefore a highly visible iceberg tip of danger on the roads in London, to cyclists and to other road users. And of that, danger from tipper trucks – essentially industrial equipment primarily used off-road – is just a part.
Conclusion
Transport for London has made an important step forward in addressing lorry danger in London through its support for CLOCS. Our concern is that while impressive efforts can be made with high profile issues (the “big and shiny” syndrome), its bureaucracy can get wrong-footed on a more mundane and routine issue. While the issue of stickers on wrong types of vehicle is of little importance in itself – although the large numbers of inappropriately stickered vehicles on London streets do send an unhelpful message, especially to drivers – it has reminded us about more general problems TfL has on sustainable transport in particular and cyclist safety in general.
We have spent plenty of time on www.rdrf.org.uk drawing attention to TfL’s wrong and dangerous targets for road safety , its inability to measure danger on the road properly, and its poor record on cyclist safety apart from some work on lorry danger . Then we have all the usual transport establishment issues about the methods of cost-benefit analysis (see these useful comments) ; bias in law enforcement ; the inequitable costs (to the user) of motoring compared to other modes, particularly cycling; a failure to consider areas – such as adequately accessible bicycles, cycling equipment or secure and convenient home parking – which affect the take-up of cycling; and “ road safety” ideology which blurs the difference of rule-breaking between motorised and non-motorised road users.
Partially addressing the use of one type of the most threatening type of vehicle involved in half the cyclist deaths (but less than one in twenty injuries) is welcome.
But only a very small part of what needs to be done.
Dr Robert Davis and Colin McKenzie March 2nd 2015
Note on statistics March 4th
Road Danger Reduction Forum 
Thanks for the prompt Bob, to write up some notes from the conference. This is perhaps the third year that Glen Davies has re-worked his presentation on the CLOCS programme. This year he gave us more key points to press home. Instead of comparing the progress in the cab design of coaches to that of trucks over the past 30+ years, he was able to at last show a movement from the crude box cab stuck high above the engine – almost unchanged for decades…. until the steady delivery of new lower walk-in cabs, ironically not originally introduced to deliver cyclist and pedestrian safety, but to deal with the many crews on refuse trucks, and delivery vehicles injured by slipping from the steps climbing in or out of the cab, and the greater efficiency of the crew being able to get in and out of the cab to collect bins or make deliveries. It did not take us long though to see the huge potential for making things safer for those outside, with the direct vision that the low cabs and eye-to-eye contact that the driver can make with those outside.
The eyes deliver over 90% of the messages received by the brain, with non verbal message being language independent and faster than any speech can achieve. Eye contact is possibly the most developed way of avoiding collisions, and Glen told us about observing the crowds moving around a London Rail station. Those actively using their eyes, telegraphed their intentions to others using their eyes, and moved swiftly and efficiently around. All those using their eyes also saw others engrossed with small screen devices, generally moving more slowly, and took action to avoid being on a collision course with these hazardous people. Of course the third ‘encounter’ was between 2 engrossed individuals, who almost without fail walked into each other.
It wasn’t only the vision issue – the trucks used for moving waste off site and delivering stone have a high ground clearance, and are designed to operate off-road, an operating requirement which for most of the trucks in use covers about 0.5% of the work they are called on to do. For 99.5% of the work they DO NOT NEED to be such massive behemoths, with the front apron set do high up that any pedestrian hit WILL be knocked flat and in line to be rolled over by the wheels. True there is a premium on the low cab designs, as they are not the current mainstream production vehicles, but can I take you back 30 years when a few bus operators were buying novel bus designs, no longer a truck chassis with a body the passengers climbed up steps to board, but with a low roll-on roll-off flat floor for at least part of the passenger saloon. there was a premium price to buy these buses, but they were faster loading at bus stops, and off peak they attracted pram users going to the shops, and wheelchair users began to gain independent and at will access to bus services. Gradually more low floor buses began to get used, and then in January 1999 the EU directive proposed that there would be no new service buses sold without wheelchair access, and a goal to have all the service bus fleets as low floor or accessible, by 2020. Look around because almost all new buses are low floor the prices for new buses have come down, and a step entry bus is a rare sight on a local bus service. Are we moving in this direction with trucks?
Finally Jonathan Backhouse gave a compelling presentation. Backhouse-Jones are a major legal service provider for the road haulage industry, and he talked the audience through “So one of your drivers has had a crash with one of your trucks” “What happens next”. He gave graphic descriptions of how the Police action would be to arrest the driver, if only to provide them with the conditions to pursue their enquiries, how the truck and load would be impounded and all that this might imply. You could sense the way that this was sinking in with the audience.
Glen also noted that the insurance industry had reported that the work of CLOCS, to deliver clarity and common processes, for recording incidents had done more in 4 years for improved claims recording that they reckon to have managed in 30, and it is with this clarity I hope that we begin to get clear lessons about what changes to make, and the evidence to back this.
There was a gentle ‘nudge’ from those, who through the Police and other crash investigations, end up collecting the facts and figures about fatal and serious crashes. Sometimes the immediate reaction is one of the truck driver making all the mistakes which lead to the crash which in its way is as simplistic and wrong as the dreadful Cyclists Stay Back vinyls. We have something which can be developed. Let’s keep it rolling
PS I cycled out from Euston to Excel via CS2 and Bow. Notable on the way out was the tipper truck liberally plastered with “Cyclists Stay Back’ vinyls not only at the back but on the front and sides. Give the way the truck was coming up behind me on Commercial Street these warnings were probably justified, as I found it desirable to make it clear to that driver that I knew he was there and that he was coming no closer in the traffic – which fortunately blocked him and left me the width of a car to put some space between us.
The flyover as usual at 08.00-08.30 Eastbound was almost deserted, and I stopped off at the Three Mills Cafe for breakfast and traffic watching. In the space of 2 minutes 2 pedestrians crossed the road (all 6 lanes/4 carriageways and 2 cycle lanes!) as I’d noted the last time but with a cyclist on that day clearly this road causes a massive severance to North-South pedestrian movement. The cafe manager noted that since the Eastbound cycle lane had created a truncated slip-road there had been at least one significant crash, and the Westbound route had several potential sites for rear end shunts, or drivers left hooking cyclists at the junctions. On the way back I spotted Operation Safeway on the go from the flyover so I when back around to take a look.
There was a female motorbike officer who I tried to engage as she walked away from the Safeway ‘stopping’ site. I asked whether they might also be checking the circulating traffic, which was patently wiping out the 2-second advance green for cyclists to get moving ahead of the motor traffic, typically holding back the cyclists for 4 seconds, so that motor vehicles from the rear stop line have reached the front stop line and cut up the cyclists as they eventually get to move away. The Police officer refused to look at this blatant and danger creating driving, and gruffly insisted that the advance green for cyclists was 20 seconds (an obviously ludicrous figure – or a sign of total ignorance from someone whose training should surely have given them a clear sense of how long a second is – even if only to observe the 2-second rule when following another vehicle). If this is the quality of Operation Safeway officer briefing then there is something in need of serious attention in delivery of this campaign.
Dave, Thanks for backing up information about vision and ground clearance, particularly with regard to construction industry vehicles. The link between this and the sticker issue is that if TfL wants to change things it has to get its act together across the board, so engineering and policing notes are relevant.
And of course the proportion of incidents involving HGVs is such that we have to look at the overall context anyway.
Sadly in Melbourne we get cyclists pushed under trucks each year:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-02/car-dooring-death-easily-avoidable-safety-campaigner-says/6273352
So even the most diligent and careful heavy vehicle driver could do with these reduced clearance designs to improve road safety.
Hi id just like to point out the tyrefix uk van that’s been said that it shouldn’t have the sticker on the rear. we are cross rail compliant and that sticker is a must to enter on site. and surely any larg vechical in London should be macking an effort to mack the roads safer even if they are not a member. ????
The TfL/FORS view, and that of the safety, cycling and other stakeholder professionals is that there should not be stickers on vans, minibuses, cars or other vehicles which do not have the visibility issues of HGVs. (This is explained in our previous posts here https://rdrf.org.uk/2015/02/20/cyclists-stay-back-stickers-the-saga-continues/ and beforehand).
Essentially, we don’t think this helps and can indeed hinder in – “making the road safer”.
I’m sure Crossrail compliance requires high standards of health and safety among contractors. Nevertheless, the view taken by TfL/FORS is its members are not allowed to have these stickers because they are not helpful – to use your phrase again – for making the roads safer.
The table makes no sense. The description of “ratio” doesn’t explain how its derived. Taxis and HGVs have the same KSI and proportion of vehicles, yet have very different ratio of 4 and 1.4. How come?
You will have to ask TfL. But do Taxis an HGVs have the same number (and therefore proportion of vehicles) ? I know there are about 30,000 HGVs on London’s roads in a given day, but haven’ got taxi figures in front of me. Don’t forget that will be black cabs and others as well.Let us know when you find out…