Bicycle Lorry deaths

[vetran]

Which requires work with both groups.
Only working with lorry drivers because it's "easier" is saying that there is no need to change cyclists behaviour.

no it is not.

You can TRY to reach the cyclists but the most effective solution is to fix the lorries. It is just common sense the lorries give the biggest bang for your buck, there is no judgement of behavior involved.

Statistically the lorries are more dangerous, cyclists might be complete tossers, but it seems technically possible to fix the issue the lorry drivers are facing fairly cheaply. If its say £1k / lorry then why the hell not do it?

[vetran]

Which is why police forces do things like this - linky

indeed and they are well intentioned and almost certainly a good idea.

[SueEllen]

I didn't suggest that the should cycle into you; that's just silly.

Unfortunately that's what the older ones do even if it's unintentional that's why the highway code states you must not cycle on the pavement, and why particular councils have signs on lampposts that explicit state that cycling on the pavement is strictly forbidden.

[SueEllen]

Which requires work with both groups.
Only working with lorry drivers because it's "easier" is saying that there is no need to change cyclists behaviour.

Everyone can be a cyclist but only a few people have a current licence to drive a HGV or bus. In other words it is far easier to target and change the behaviour of approximately 100,000 than 65 million people.

[WTFH]

no it is not.

You can TRY to reach the cyclists but the most effective solution is to fix the lorries. It is just common sense the lorries give the biggest bang for your buck, there is no judgement of behavior involved.

Statistically the lorries are more dangerous, cyclists might be complete tossers, but it seems technically possible to fix the issue the lorry drivers are facing fairly cheaply. If its say £1k / lorry then why the hell not do it?

OK, so who pays the extra £1k per lorry?
Oh, I get it, the lorry drivers need to pay that because the cyclists don't need to do anything, they don't need to have any responsibility.

A cyclist with their headphones on, ignoring traffic signs, ignoring traffic - well that issue isn't fixed by charging/fining other road users.

Road users must show respect, use common sense and take responsibility for their actions, their safety and the safety of those around them. You cannot force all the problems, blame and costs onto one group, which is what you appear to be saying.

[WTFH]

Just to put it into perspective:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...cgb2015-01.pdf

[vetran]

OK, so who pays the extra £1k per lorry?
Oh, I get it, the lorry drivers need to pay that because the cyclists don't need to do anything, they don't need to have any responsibility.

A cyclist with their headphones on, ignoring traffic signs, ignoring traffic - well that issue isn't fixed by charging/fining other road users.

Road users must show respect, use common sense and take responsibility for their actions, their safety and the safety of those around them. You cannot force all the problems, blame and costs onto one group, which is what you appear to be saying.

I was always taught pick your battles.

Some you can win, others you are fated to lose.

As mentioned above the cost of a single death to the country would pay for much of it.

£1K is a guess but Cameras & display with some sort of proximity alarm fitted would probably cover it. Most of the large companies would see it as a PR advantage Teso etc aren't going to say "no we aren't going to try to save lives" and the smaller ones would probably swayed by a reduction in congestion charged.

[WTFH]

Bicycle Lorry deaths

According to WHO, we are the 4th lowest country in the world for road fatalities (behind the Maldives, Sweden & Norway).

If we take the figure to 100,000 lorries/buses on the road and multiply that by £1k, we get £100million. That's the cost to fit all the current lorries/buses with the devices.
Will that stop all cycle deaths on the road? No.

Will it reduce the number of accidents? Possibly.
If a cyclist knows that if they try to squeeze through a gap, the lorry driver will be to blame for hitting them because of the video/sensors/etc, will it make a cyclist more or less likely to try to do so?

How about fitting the vehicles with speaker that announce the vehicle is turning (in the same way they have it with reversing)?

[BrilloPad]

OK, so who pays the extra £1k per lorry?
Oh, I get it, the lorry drivers need to pay that because the cyclists don't need to do anything, they don't need to have any responsibility.

A cyclist with their headphones on, ignoring traffic signs, ignoring traffic - well that issue isn't fixed by charging/fining other road users.

Road users must show respect, use common sense and take responsibility for their actions, their safety and the safety of those around them. You cannot force all the problems, blame and costs onto one group, which is what you appear to be saying.

The vast majority of cyclist deaths are women. Because they are less aggressive. Obeying the law is great unless it makes you less safe.

[WTFH]

Bicycle Lorry deaths

The vast majority of cyclist deaths are women. Because they are less aggressive. Obeying the law is great unless it makes you less safe.

According to the government, 81% are men.

Edit, sorry, let me correct that - 81% of accidents (not deaths) are male cyclists