The following description was taken from HGV Safety Permit for London by TfL :

London’s mayor has committed to a ‘vision zero’ approach to road safety that targets zero collision deaths or serious injuries by 2041. Blind spot collisions between vulnerable road users and HGVs undertaking low speed manoeuvres are a significant contributor current casualty totals and several upgrades to the field of view from mirrors has not eliminated the problems. TfL’s Direct Vision Standard (DVS) aims to substantially reduce the risks and it is proposed that all vehicles entering London must have a DVS rating of at least 1-star by 2020 and 3-star by 2024. If this standard cannot be met it is proposed that they must demonstrate a ‘Safe System’ approach to at least partly compensate for the poorer standard of direct vision.

The measures proposed for inclusion in the ‘Safe System’ are:

  • Blind spots minimised via indirect vision
  • Blind spot information or warnings systems for the HGV driver
  • Warning the VRU of the vehicle’s intended manoeuvre
  • Protection in the event of a collision
  • Driver training on the safety of vulnerable road users (advised, not mandatory)

Apollo Vehicle Safety was commissioned to assess the effectiveness of the proposed measures & define clear standards based on technical evidence & operational experience. This involved a combination of scientific literature review, analysis of collision data and surveys of equipment suppliers, freight operators and HGV drivers. None of the proposed solutions benefitted from the highest standards of evidence that they would reduce casualties, but this is at least partly due to a lack of data rather than evidence of a lack of effect. All proposed systems had at least some evidence that they could be effective, though the extent and confidence in the data varied. For all systems, the evidence suggested that the extent of benefits would depend strongly on the technical performance standards applied to the systems.

Based on a combination of identified best practices for system design and information about the standard of systems already in the market place in numbers, three broad categories of requirements were defined for each proposed system: Basic, Advanced and Superior. Three policy options were defined for TfL’s consideration:

  • Basic: requires all systems at the basic level.
  • Advanced: requires all systems at the advanced level.
  • Flexible: awards points for each system fitted (1-Basic; 2-Advanced; 3-Superior) and defines a minimum-points total to be achieved.

Option a. minimises the number of vehicles where existing safety systems would need to be upgraded, while option b. increases the safety performance but requires a much higher burden of system upgrade and a higher cost to industry. Option 3 attempts to recognise that a high performing single system may offer greater casualty benefits than 2 or even 3 basic systems and, therefore, to allow the industry flexibility in how they achieve the safety aims.