UK safety app keeping lorries on the right side of cyclists A route-planning app that will help lorries avoid left-hand turns – manoeuvres responsible for the majority of road deaths among cyclists – is being piloted in a scheme funded by the government's Transport Systems Catapult. PIE Mapping, a British company which already delivers route-planning products to hauliers, is developing …
You sir, are a complete idiot. I am both a cyclist and a motorist. Not many cyclists are "Trying to squeeze between a 20 tonne truck". In fact, I was nearly killed recently by a van driver who accelerated aggressively up a road, caught up with me exactly at a left hand junction, and swung a left directly in to my path. I believe he was on his phone. I wasn't trying to squeeze between anything.
When I am driving I don't swerve into cycle lanes, I double check my left mirror, and I indicate. Unfortunately a lot of motorists don't do this.
This is not to say there aren't some idiot cyclists. There are. But your sweeping statement comes from a position of pure naivety.
There are two main problems with cyclists and motorists on the road.
The first is drivers of vehicles who don't use their left hand mirror. We've all seen examples of motorists failing to use their mirrors properly even when cyclists aren't about. They think it's an optional extra or something you use to make sure they're looking good.
The second problem is cyclists themselves. Any idiot can waltz up to Halfords, buy a bike and set off. They may have never been on the road in any capacity other than a bus, and think they can use both the pavements and the road whenever it suits them. Oh, and those traffic lights are for motorists only apparently.
My point of view is that anyone who uses the road must have a license to do so, to indicate some level of training. Drivers of cars, mopeds, trucks, buses etc all must have licenses and insurance. Cyclists, even though they are supposed to use the road and not use the pavement, are exempt from this. Which is stupid. My point of view has been compounded by a few incidents where the cyclist caused me to change direction or stop - thankfully not resulting in any damage.
First incident was driving in the town and I came up to a T-junction. No lights etc. I'm slowing down to stop at the give way, and this f**king idiot of a w****r on a bastard BMX nearly went in to the side of my car bonnet. He was on the pavement doing some daft speed (this was at the foot of a hill). Then the moron waved me on. He, waved, me, on. As much to say "after you fella". No helmet or anything. And another incident not involving me but happened to a friend was when he came up to a roundabout, looked right to see if anything was coming, there wasn't proceeded to drive forward when he hit a cyclist. The woman, wearing nothing more than a dress (so no helmet) decided it was a good idea to cycle on the road, anti-clockwise around the roundabout.
The idea to train motorists to respect cyclists is a good idea, but it shouldn't be the only idea. It should be mandatory for cyclists to undergo proper instruction and have a license and insurance. It's only fair, and can at least mean education is being delivered to every single user of the road.
So I need a license to walk along a public road? Pedestrians are road users as well. There is a reason motor vehicles require a license. Because they are bloody dangerous. Maybe all pedestrians should have insurance in case they bump into some one? Should we also stamp a license plate on people's arms ? You were doing so well until you jumped onboard the usual car fetishists bandwagon.
"There is a reason motor vehicles require a license. Because they are bloody dangerous."
Maybe not pedestrians, but cyclists under and overtaking all the cars sticking to posted 20mph limits maybe need to get a clue that the law applies to them too. Especially in university towns where the 20mph limit is posted because it's a student area. Cyclists colliding with pedestrians can result in serious injury and death too, especially when they go straight through a red light.
Fortunately, most cyclists aren't that stupid. Apart from the one I saw yesterday who gave me the finger because I beeped my horn at him. Maybe if he'd used the cycle lane based on the side of the road he was on and looked at the pretty pictures of bicycles painted on the surface and noticed they were upside down he might have realised I was attempting to save his life by suggesting he ride of the correct side of the road.
"Maybe not pedestrians, but cyclists under and overtaking all the cars sticking to posted 20mph limits maybe need to get a clue that the law applies to them too."
Actually in that particular case it doesn't. Speed limits apply specifically to motor vehicles only, there are no speed limits for cyclists, pedestrians, horses or horse-drawn vehicles.
That's a different issue from whether riding too fast is a good idea or not, but legally there's no obligation to keep to a speed limit.
"Actually in that particular case it doesn't. Speed limits apply specifically to motor vehicles only, there are no speed limits for cyclists, pedestrians, horses or horse-drawn vehicles."
I wonder if that is actually true everywhere, and why should it. The reason I wonder is that I remember a cyclist in Norway being fined for doing more than 50km/h when the limit was 50.
"Actually in that particular case it doesn't. Speed limits apply specifically to motor vehicles only, there are no speed limits for cyclists, pedestrians, horses or horse-drawn vehicles."
Thanks. I honestly didn't know that. Or if I did it was many years ago and long forgotten in favour of "common knowledge" :-)
'Mopeds'. These have hardly been seen in this country since the 70s. What I think you mean are step-through scooters, which are significantly more powerful than mopeds ... and can be ridden legally on a 'Learner' license without ever passing a proper riding test. These are often ridden by frustrated car drivers on their car license (which is why the L plate). Such people often have no training on two wheels at all, which is why you see them overtaking illegally on the zig zag lines at crossings all the time.
'Cyclists'. Ok you've had a shitty experience involving someone on a bike - probably more than one experience I'm assuming, so therefore all cyclists in your view a 'f**king idot w****rs' are they? Nice one. There plenty of people who ride bikes who are sensible and respect the road, but unfortunately those such as you have described are the ones who stand out. I've had plenty of shitty experiences on my bike vs motorised vehicles - such as the black cabbie who turned left across me recently with no left indicator having overtaken me from behind ... and then yelled at me for getting in his way. I don't think bad of all car drivers just because of this dick. In fact, I am a car driver myself quite often as are a lot of cyclists - very few people stick to a single mode of transport.
'Training'. The many cycle campaign groups such as the LCC do in fact run regular training sessions for new cyclists. You can see them at strategic cycle commuting spots all over London, offering their bike check and training services to commuters.
'Red Lights'. Jumping red lights in the 90s used to be the preserve of a dispatch rider. Depressingly the increasing numbers of converted car drivers are copying them, thinking its the done thing and abusing their new found freedom. Those of us who have been on the roads any length of time know why this is stupid and wait patiently at the lights along with the cars ... I tell you though, the ASB (advance stopping box) designed to keep cyclists safe is a scary place to be when the lights go green and the horde of motorbikes, cars and other larger vehicles are stuck behind you wanting to get going!
'Insurance'. Actually more people than you probably think do have insurance. People such as your BMX idiot would never have it even if it were mandatory though.
'Road Tax'. Cyclists are tax payers the same as everyone else and therefore do contribute to the upkeep of the roads. Car/Van/Truck drivers fairly pay extra because these significantly larger vehicles occupy most of the road and indeed are more or less the only users of the 'open road'. Cycles are largely confined to the urban environments (although obviously with the exception of the minority road cycling community.)
'Cycle Superhighway'. STOP. Can we please end this madness immediately. Why should bikes be confined to a narrow path where you can't comfortably and safely overtake other cycles, and on a painted blue surface which becomes slippery in wet weather??
You don't understand how the deaths are happening. A cyclist stops at a red light in the cycle lane. A lorry pulls alongside them. The lights change. The cyclist goes forward, the lorry turns left and the cyclist is crushed between the lorry and the railings.
My approach to avoiding this situation is to go past the stop line, far enough forward of the lorry that I'm in the driver's line of sight. It's illegal but it's much safer. Advance stop boxes for cyclists are an attempt to formalise this behaviour.
I cycle to work daily. I strongly believe that advanced stop lines are a very bad thing, because they are usually accompanied by a cycle lane on the left side of the road. This encourages cyclists to think that it's OK to overtake cars on the left and then turn right. Why is this a bad thing? Because there's a significant minority of cyclists who don't understand that you should *never* do this unless the cars next to you are stationary. Otherwise, you've got cyclists trying to turn right across the path of cars which are trying to turn left.
Overtaking moving traffic on the left to be able to turn right is self nomination for a Darwin award, so far as I'm concerned. If you're turning right and want to live, you should use the correct lane on the approach to a junction, especially if you're a cyclist, not protected by a big metal box.
Making lorry drivers travel further to reduce cycling deaths is a pollution to our problem. (Apologies to Goscinny and Uderzo for stealing that one).
If the problem is cyclists passing lorries on the left, then it is clearly the cyclists who need to change their behaviour. If, however, the problem is lorries stopping beside cyclists and then turning left and crushing them, cyclists should stop in the middle of the left hand lane at junctions so that lorries can't stop beside them. (I offer a solution with no extra pollution...)
Making lorry drivers travel further to reduce cycling deaths is a pollution to our problem. (Apologies to Goscinny and Uderzo for stealing that one).
I believe more can be solved by education of both the vehicle drivers and the cyclists than what seems to be proposed.
Here in the States, USP and FedEx have both found that careful planning such that their drivers do minimal crossing of the on-coming traffic lanes saves fuel and lowers accident rates. Other truck/lorry companies are also finding it to their advantage. If it was mandated to make those vehicle cross the oncoming traffic lanes the fuel usage, pollution, and accident rates would go up.
From my viewpoint as a cyclist and motorist, both carry blame. Too many cyclists think they own the road. Well, maybe, but it's better to get the hell out of the way of an inattentive driver than to be dead right.
I expect downvotes from the "avid" cyclists who will inevitability bash about any motoring person.
Your approach is wrong and arrogant. GET BEHIND THE TRUCK instead of next to it. GET IN LINE like all the other motor vehicles on the road.
YOU ARE STILL A MOTOR VEHICLE even if you ride a bicycle. I don't care if you are human powered or not.
You don't have any right to cut THEM off by slipping in next to them and expect that they will see you. THE BIGGEST VEHICLE should always have the right of way. You are just a flyspeck next to a 50 ton roadhauling vehicle. Don't tempt fate and don't assume you can be seen as they cannot see well from the cab.
Your actions are exactly why many motorists find cyclists to be a road hazard, if not pretentious twats.
I think you need to stop shouting.
You seem to have missed the point about the cycle lane. The specific lane, that's there, for bikes to use. How am I cutting anyone off by being at the front of the queue in the lane that's there, for me?
How am I tempting fate - I believe I explained that I position myself so that I can be seen, and I confirm it by making eye contact with the driver.
I have no idea how you expect me to get behind a truck that has pulled up alongside me. Do you think I should try and ride backwards, past the nine or ten cyclists queued behind me and then try and force my way into the gap between the back of the truck and the vehicle behind it?
Perhaps a bit less shouting and bit more thinking might help you? Maybe try getting some exercise?
You are not expected to get behind a truck that has pulled up alongside you.
A truck pulling up alongside you has already seen you through his front windscreen and knows you are there.
The dangerous scenario is a different one, when the truck driver has moved into a visibly empty piece of road at a junction, and a cyclists has joined him afterwards without his knowledge and is waiting out of sight. That cyclist should know that he is taking a bigger than normal risk.
There are a number of problems with this theory. "behind" is where all the pollution comes from, which is not very nice. And "in the middle" is one of the least safe places to be, because you can get crushed between two vehicles when they come to a stop. And, finally, unless you block the lane, in the middle, you can still get killed at the left hand turn, because everybody will try and overtake you before you get there when the traffic moves off.
So, the safest place to be on a bike is at the front. You have no one in front of you, so you can get rear ended, but only by drivers going over the red light *and* you cannot get crushed. You can get around the left hand corner before the cars (since bikes accelerate faster than most cars and all lorries). And you get cleaner air.
The problem, of course, is that you have to get to the front, which means going up the left or the right. So, it's always a gamble -- shall I pass this bus on the left where I will be much less safe, so I can get to the front where I will be much safer. It's a problem.
Still, I agree the alternative, that we are pretentious twats and a road hazard, rather than mothers, fathers and children trying to stay alive, is equally likely.
"THE BIGGEST VEHICLE should always have the right of way."
I realise you're probably trolling, but for the benefit of others, and with the caveat that it's a while since I checked...
The only place where "right of way" applies in the UK is at zebra crossings, where pedestrians have right of way over vehicles.
In every other circumstance, "right of way" does not apply. Other rules may have similar effects, e.g. not passing a red traffic light.
I think you are reading this wrong he was in line, the truck would be behind him and should stay behind him, instead it pulls up alongside him. This is why the suggestion of taking up the whole lane in front of the truck proposed by someone else on here is a solution to that.
I have to say as well as someone who cycles, drives and has been on motorbikes. There's a big attitude with some motorists in the UK that make riding unsafe it's almost like they resent people who are not driving so much they do irrational things that put the cyclist/motorcyclist at risk. Seriously I feel safer riding a motorbike in parts of SEA compared with riding bikes on some English roads.
This post has been deleted by its author
I actually have an easier approach than that. Just stop in the middle of the road. Become a part of the flow of normal traffic until you feel safe to move back into the cycle lane. I'd rather be 6 cars back from the red lights but in the middle of the traffic, where I feel an element of control, than right up front but overshadowed by someone who I cannot know whether they have seen me or not.
Cyclists utter obsession with getting ahead of traffic at junctions does them no favours. It pisses off every other motorist and puts them in dangerous situations.
>> Cyclists utter obsession with getting ahead of traffic at junctions does them no favours. It pisses off every other motorist and puts them in dangerous situations.
How about the motorists utter obsession with getting ahead of the cyclist travelling at 25mph in a 30, and then cutting them up?
I have numerous videos of motorist doing exactly that to me.
It would appear that training, licence and insurance does not actually make them better at driving.
"Cyclists utter obsession with getting ahead of traffic at junctions does them no favours. It pisses off every other motorist and puts them in dangerous situations."
The whole point of commuting by bike is to get there faster. A bonus is it costs less, keeps you fit, causes less obstruction overall to motor vehicles and kills fewer people.
If I have to stay in line with cars (10x my width) then I might as well use my car. But if we all did this then the congestion would be much worse and you would be stuck fuming in your car for even longer. Who would you take out your frustration on then?
You have my sympathy - driving cars in cities today is bound to make you feel angry.
> The whole point of commuting by bike is to get there faster. A bonus is it costs less, keeps you fit,
> You have my sympathy - driving cars in cities today is bound to make you feel angry.
Actually, I hardly ever drive and almost never in cities (pisses me off too much). I either run or cycle. And, in my view, the "whole point" is to arrive on time. But at least we all now know what type of cyclist YOU are.
Advance stop lines appear to be ignored by most drivers. When I've pointed this out to offending Taxis, Buses, White Vans etc, they try the "the lights changed after I crossed the line" - I'm amazed at the reactions these drivers have.
The kinds of drivers that are likely to squash a cyclist are not the ones that are going to use an app that pessimises (opposite of optmises) their journey.
It's a shame that there's no political will to bring in more segregated cycle lanes.
The actual problem has been touched upon by a few commentards. I struggle to comprehend how it is legal to drive a vehicle from which you cannot see your immediate surroundings.
Not so long ago I saw a talking head on the box explaining that these lorries were designed for thrunning along all day on motorways, not negotiating city streets. So what are they doing on those city streets?
-A.
"a talking head on the box explaining that these lorries were designed for thrunning along all day on motorways, not negotiating city streets. "So what are they doing on those city streets?"
And not only that, the streets in most UK towns and cities weren't designed for use by HGVs of recent decades, HGVs which as well as the inevitable diesel pollution frequently also cause traffic chaos as they attempt to negotiate twisty narrow streets and corners while they deliver their shelf full of bread to Tesburys Express.
But that's fighting talk, that is.
Look where it got Ken Livingstone when he (entirely reasonably) suggested that HGVs were not welcome in the GLC area unless specifically authorised to be within it.
You, and he, are of course perfectly correct. But not going to be very popular.
This post has been deleted by its author
The construction and use regs say "Every motor vehicle shall be so designed and constructed that the driver thereof while controlling the vehicle can at all times have a full view of the road and traffic ahead of the motor vehicle."
so if the driver can't see the cycles in front then they shouldn't be driving. I believe there have been some failed prosecutions.
> "Every motor vehicle shall be so designed and constructed that the driver thereof while controlling the vehicle can at all times have a full view of the road and traffic ahead of the motor vehicle."
Well yes, even the worst of the truck has a full view ahead - but not down to the road immediately below the front bumper ! That is the case with (almost) every vehicle I know of - there is some dead spot between the "horizon" where visibility is cut off by the bonnet or bottom of the windscreen and the road below the bumper.
In practical terms, to "cure" this for large vehicles would mean making the vehicle even larger - moving the "oily bits" further back so the drivers cab can be mounted lower down. Since vehicle lengths are limited (both by law and practicality in towns/cities), making the "front end" bigger means less load carrying space and so more trucks on the road.
>> I wonder if that is actually true everywhere, and why should it
Well actually it is true in the UK - a vehicle which is not required by law to carry a speed measuring device (ie speedometer) cannot be prosecuted for exceeding a speed limit. It's a matter of practicality since the driver generally cannot (in law) be expected to accurately know his speed.
There is however, for a bicycle rider, the offence of "furious riding" which could be applied. But of course, to apply that you'd have to catch them at it - since there are no number plates to identify the vehicle by.
NB - good luck getting to where I work without turning left, it's on the left on a one-way street !
You are of course correct, but you're telling only half the story.
The other way this accident occurs is that the truck arrives at the lights, sans cyclists, and is indicating left. Cyclists then arrive and pass down the left of the truck not realising the driver has not and often cannot see them. The lights change and everyone sets off, the cyclist aims straight ahead and the truck aims left. Sometimes the cyclist hasn't reached the ASL and is still alongside the truck making progress when the lights change, giving the driver even less chance of seeing them.
Extended ASL will help (a cyclist at the back of the current ASL may not be visible to a large truck pulled up to its stop line), but so would ensuring cyclists stop when they reach the back of an indicating vehicle, or at least pass it on the opposing side (allowing that it may need to swing wide to make the turn).
Road safety has to be hollistic (hate the word but it fits) if everyone is going to get home alive. I need to leave you space to make a mistake and you need to reciprocate (for any value of what I'm driving/cycling and what you're driving/cycling). I walk, drive, and (rarely) cycle. I've never driven a truck but appreciate it won't be easy in London.
Well to be honest if the trucks already pulled up and indicating left and you try and get down the side tha'ts pretty much Darwin in action.
This is from the British Cycling Org website "Filtering up the left hand side of high-sided vehicles is a complete NO. Several cyclists can be situated at the side of the vehicle without being seen by the driver."
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/insightzone/techniques/balance_and_coordination/article/izn20130830-Effective-traffic-riding-part-1-0
The issue is that TfL and the Metropolitan Police both have campaigns about cyclists making sure they are visible, all the while TfL keeps designing infrastructure that forces cyclists to go up the lefthand side of vehicles, and advanced stop zones that are the exact same size and shape of the blind spot in front of HGV's.
Met Police 'Exchanging Places': https://youtu.be/UN7mJR64tvs
HGV blindspot training image: http://www.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large_610x456_scaled/photos/253809.jpg
Advanced Stop Zone: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0P5bkEYlbMQ/UGGWo_ERyYI/AAAAAAAABUg/gQPjWycBEOg/s1600/2.JPG
As long as you have this massive disconnect, cyclists will continue to get killed.
... but to be honest, any cyclist who rides up the inside of a large vehicle at a junction is asking for trouble. Cycle defensively, and you'll avoid most if not all scrapes.
For the cyclists who still insist on taking the inside track, reflect on the possible consequences
"Any cyclist who rides up the inside of a large vehicle at a junction is asking for trouble."
The vast majority of times I've been cycling, the large vehicle has come up on the cyclist, not the other way around. I've even been sideswiped by a bus barging past whilst on a roundabout.
Many large vehicle operators work on the basis of "might makes right. GTFOOMY"
They should do away with the access lanes up that left hand side. They give cyclists a false sense of entitlement that they somehow have a "right" to wander up the side of lorries and buses without stopping to think they are risking life and limb.
As a daily cyclist I always try to remember to waltz up the side that's safest but the lane markings are very alluring and it only takes a split second decision to get it wrong.
Or, do what some countries do and simply install lights for cyclists, but that's costly.
Yes, cyclists can be incredibly stupid and crawl up the LHS of a big vehicle. Swift movements when you know it's safe is better than being unsure and chancing it. That's where common sense should prevail to be careful and leave room for manoeuver.
I agree cycling can be faster, make you more fit, but sensible judgement is needed. As others have stated, sometimes it's safer to move up the right hand side, especially if a left-turn signal is indicated, but I guess I'm preaching to some form of choir given the number of comments I can see (85 before posting)
Note: I also rollerblade on the road and am continually educating cyclists I meet (in person) to not hang completely left as it makes the lane look wide open. Sitting more prominently in a lane and forcing cars to overtake (assuming you're doing a reasonable speed for the road) is much safer, and what's taught to motorcycles who are also be affected by this left hand turning business.
The vast majority of times I've been cycling, the large vehicle has come up on the cyclist, not the other way around.
As a truck driver I've lost count of the number of times I've been stopped at a set of traffic lights, the tyres being barely 4 inches from the kerb and looked in my nearside mirror to see a cyclist with their bike leaning on a 45 degree angle scooting up the left hand side of my vehicle even as I'm sat there with FOUR indicators on the left hand side of the vehicle flashing because I'm going to turn left.
When they're not going up the left side, they're trying to prise their way through the gap in the middle between me and the lane of traffic to their right.
For a cyclist to be killed by a left-turning lorry implies that the cyclist is in the driver's blind spot, and basic defensive driving/cycling would suggest that an aware rider wouldn't get there at a dangerous moment. To put it another way, if I were riding a bike and approaching a junction, I'd make damn sure not to try and pass the lorry on the left just at the corner.
Like most road "accidents" there's rarely only one party to blame, most of them involve some stupidity or lack of attention on the part of both vehicles involved.
Indeed, if you are stupid enough to filter up the inside of a large vehicle at a corner you are asking for it.
The trouble is that far too often the driver, either due to impatience or inattentiveness, pass the cyclist and then turn immediately left.
This often happens at lights, particularly were there is an advanced stop box. The lights go green and the impatient driver, irritated at a "bloody cyclist" stopping in front of him or her accelerates past and cuts across left in front them.
I like that you mention the "blind spot" and I would like to add that when a car turns a bit to the left the left mirror becoms worthless. Some cyclist soon as they step onto their bike are transformed into feeling like goldarmored knights riding a huge white horse. Pedestrians and cars will stop and bow in awe. Odd thinghs happen in their brains.
Somebody pointed out that lorries drive for their livelyhood and are in a hurry perhaps. But cyclist hate to stop and put down their foot, as embarrasing as it would be for that knight to dissmantle that horse at every korner. Those cyclist will rather increase the speed to beat the car at the corner or start wobbling on the spot for a while to be able to be first again.
So give us some more statistics, how many cyclists where run over by a car, how many cyclists run themselves under a car. Incidently if half of the accidents involve lorries every second was not a lorry.
How many incidents with bikes colliding with bikes and pedestrians.
What is the relation between pedestrians run over by cars compared to cyclists taking into account the number of pedestrians to cyclists crossing streets.
I have told my kids that cars see other cars and perhaps pedestrians but not cyclists. Just accept it and stay alive.
Years ago I knew a nice guy, a boss at a customer of mine. He then was involved in an incident with a car and his bike. The driver lost and this guy won but he was perhaps unable to cheer his victory as he was dead. I wouldn't remember this but there was this dark humor as he was the boss of a company producing bikes, mad behind the wheel of his MB and most likely even madder on his product.
I was a taxi driver for some years and I can assure you that I am less afraid of cars, trams, trains, lorries, ice, snow, falling treas and earth quaques than of those white horses, and in the dark they are black and the knight feels he is beacon of light in the dark. The only more scary experience I had was a five year old kid who run out in the streed from between parked cars. Fortunately we don't carry guns so I was uable to shoot the mother.
I have to add, do look into your back mirror when you open your car door, driving into one with a bike is something you will remember too.
Lorry drivers are paid by the hour and are not, generally in a hurry - more time is more pay. It is illegal for employers to do anything that might incentivise them to rush. However, cyclists would do well to consider that a large truck is a danger on a similar scale to a dragon of the same weight. 44 ton dragons are very dangerous. Getting within 4 metres is a bad idea, and within 4 inches is insane.
To those who say "why do we have 40 ton lorries in inner cities?" The answer is, as it always has been, sure they are more dangerous than transit vans, but they are much safer than the 15 vans that would be needed to carry the same load - and also cause massively less pollution.
As the Green party has rightly pointed out: if we got rid of the people, the pollution would stop!
The issue on cyclist deaths in London is a very specific one. Many (most) are caused by a tiny segment of the lorry trade. Specifically those in the construction business. This is believed to be largely caused by the business model. Many driver owned lorries being paid by the load.
Incentivised to cut corners - literally. But also in maintenance, insurance and licensing. Complemented by H&S saying its not their job to sort and the police choosing not to enforce the law, Some decent lorry operators have greatly reduced incidents through training. But this take time and money. Giving the pirates, the guys who kill, a greater advantage.
They are not going to buy this kit. Extra cuffs for the police may be a better investment.
I don't think it's just London but it's possibly easier to fix in London:
E.g. Crossrail requires drivers working frequently on the Crossrail project to undergo special cyclist safety training:
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/road-safety-information/lorry-driver-training says
Crossrail’s tough safety requirements for any lorry working on the project is leading to widespread haulage industry changes as goods vehicles across Britain are upgraded with new safety equipment to alert drivers to vulnerable road users.
Crossrail has trained over 7,000 lorry drivers on how to share safely London’s roads with cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Crossrail is also putting cyclists in the driver seat through its ‘exchanging places’ programme to provide an understanding of the blind spots experienced by lorry drivers and working with police to visit schools to help train the next generation of cyclists in road safety and lorry awareness.
(continues)
Every frequent lorry driver working on the construction of Crossrail must complete a custom-made course designed in consultation with cycling and road safety campaign groups and the police.
Crossrail is the first project to mandate that HGVs must have additional safety equipment and driver training to protect cyclists and pedestrians. Thousands of HGVs working on the project have installed more than 20 additional safety items to alert the driver to cyclists and pedestrians and to reduce the risk of serious injury to other road users.
Where vehicles fail safety checks, the driver and the vehicle are suspended. Deliveries to site can only resume once the driver and a senior manager from the company have re-taken the lorry safety course.
[Hey look, reminding managers that they need to be accountable. That'll never catch on.]
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
