White Vans and their costs

the RAC foundation have an analysis of the White Van.,

This also includes Tipper Trucks, bringers of death to the city.

• 53% of vans are private; of these 45% of km driven are used for commuting, 17% personal. 1% for between jobs , 23% for collection and delivery. 
• 47% company, 32% commuting and 3% personal. Presumably these journeys constitute a taxable-in-kind benefit and taxed as any other company car.
• Of the company cars, 35% for goods, 19% between jobs. 
• 99% of private owners are men. You knew that, right?
• 39% of LCVs are less than 25% full. When you consider the percentages of vehicles used for commuting and personal use this is unsurprising. A lot of these vehicles are used as substitute for corporate or personal cars.
• The majority of LCVs are diesel. You knew that too.

Selected quotes from page ix

• There is evidence that LCVs have been used to substitute for HGVs
• A key factor is pay – an LCV driver might earn £15k, an HGV driver £25k
• Regulation will have an influence; vans, their operation and their drivers are less heavily regulated than HGVs

That page also predicts a doubling in size by 2040, even though page viii showed that vehicle registrations make it clear that demand is elastic: when the economy is in trouble, less vans. Therefore their growth estimates contain implicit estimates about economic growth.

The safety details on p.xi are relevant. 

1. Overall collision rates are down
2. peak collision hours are 8-9 and 5-6. These are also peak commuting hours, so vehicle use may be highest at this time.
3. 50% of vans fail their MOT first time round
4. 89% of vehicles pulled over are overweight. This contrasts with the percentage-full numbers, implying that a specific set of LCVs aer massively overweight. Tipper trucks?

The report (p.14) implies that LCVs are only in 5% reported RTCs, despite being 14% of traffic. What is not looked at is what the percentage of KSIs arise in those RTCs. Tipper trucks have a justified reputation for being lethal in London. meaning even though their percentage may be down, their damage is significantly higher.

LCVs and personal use.

Any LCV used for commuting and personal use is a taxable benefit. Yet as the paper notes,  "Although Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs record personal LCV usage for tax purposes, this is somewhat unreliable and not a true representation.". They get more detail F2F -which means that van drivers under-report their personal usage. 

LCVs and working hours. P17

only 44% of drivers know the legal limits on hours, which is ~ten working hours excluding commuting. If a driver commutes 1 hour a day each way -that's 12 hours on the road.

LCVs and Costs

The paper implies that the highest operating costs of the vehicle are fuel, at an approximate maximum of  £3,600/year. Yet the salary of a driver is a higher factor in the operational costs of the vehicle -as noted when the paper discusses how a motivator for LCVs is their reduced salaries than HGVs. 

The cost saving of switching from HGV driver to an LCV driver covers the entire annual fuel bill of the vehicle

HGV and LCV safety 

The paper highlights that the staff cost savings are a key factor driving a switch from HGV to LCV. Yet that cost saving comes at the expense of training -HGV drivers have to pass more tests. When you consider how dangerously HGV drivers can drive, how so many of them appear to be on the phone when you look at them on the motorway (try doing this from a coach, you get a better view), the fact that the driving qualification requirements of LCVs is less than HGVs is important.

When the "staff cost savings" of switching from HGVs to LCVs are mentioned, it really means "it is cheaper to employ staff without the stricter qualifications of HGV drivers"

Tipper Trucks

The article includes tipper trucks in this class -clearly part of the EU designation.

This implies 

1. that the qualifications to drive a tipper truck are less than for an HGV
2. assuming the knowledge is spread across all vehicle categories, only half the owners of tipper trucks know the working hour limits for driving LCVs.
3. Assuming the MOT failure rate is spread across all vehicles, 50% of tipper trucks are not in a condition to pass an MOT.

These are things to consider in any road safety discussion. It is also highly likely that these are the vehicles found to be overweight. One does not observe an overweight white van, but a full tipper truck is visible -and this could lead to the higher success rate on VOSA searches.

To conclude: the numbers here show the trend towards the LCV becoming a ubiquitous vehicle in the UK cities. While safer vehicles than HGVs, the fact that the driving standards are lower may increase risk, especially for the larger vehicles, the tipper trucks in particular.

Finally: 

People may whine about the cost of fuel, -but only the VAT-deductible cost of business travel is relevant. Commuting costs are not a business expense unless the owner is lying to HMG about personal use -and even trying to claim VAT back on those journeys. 

A wanker driving an white e-van is still a wanker

In the Empire of the Car, pollution is one thing that threatens the car companies -as it puts them on a par with tobacco companies, and lines them up for being banned from cities. If that happens, a key feature of the motor car "you need it to get around" goes up in flames. They would lose the cities and be left with the long journeys. And as only a fraction of journeys are the long ones, there'd be a lot less cars on the road.  No school running parents, no bored commuters on the M32 -and no people buying cars and having them serviced.

This is why e-vehicles get so much hype. The car industry can't be so fucking naive to realise that it addresses all the problems of cars and how they are destroying our cities -but they can promise it, to say "we do care, things will be better -now go and buy that Urban SUV for the school run because your last car is five years old and doesn't have an ipod socket or reversing camera." They can go to the politicians and say "we can solve the cities' problems, give us: money, per-car subsidy, C-zone exemption, car-tax exemption, free parking, the right to drive down bus-lanes, free charging points, and so on. The politicans may so fucking naive that they do believe this -they certainly give out more fucking cash per e-car than you get on a bike to work scheme, and they so love to turn up at the car factories in Swindon, Oxford and Newcastle to get their fat faces in the local rags saying "we politicians care about the environment and about jobs in the area -vote for us". Bike to work schemes, custom framebuilders and the like just don't make for these press events -and they don't have the lobbying skills either. Which is why the money goes to e-cars and not fixing our cities.

Which means that the cities will carry on being shit for cycling and walking.




White van wankers are the front line in the war against the cyclist, the ones who hate bicycles and go out of their way to "show them who owns the road", "teach them a lesson" and generally vomit abuse at anyone on a bicycle.

They also park where they fucking like, whether that's a bike lane, bike path, pavement or anywhere else that is close enough to their destination that they don't need to walk.

Does anyone really think that moving to e-vans will make these fuckwits pleasant to share roadspace with? If you do, you're a naive idiot.

They will be just as aggressive, hate bicycles just as much, only now not be able to drive six inches behind your bike over-revving the diesel engine. Maybe also slower off the mark when the lights change. They will still park where they want to, still scream hate, still have passengers who lean out the side window and swear at you (you not had that? Come visit Yate). They will still think a cyclist coming down a contraflow should not be there and swerve over to clip you.

No, a wanker driving a van will become a wanker driving a e-van,