"Cycle safety mirrors to be mounted to London’s traffic lights"

[Doug[_10_]]

Seems like a good idea, perhaps. I still think HGV drivers should have
cycle training and use vehicles with proper mirrors and sideguards,
which should be mandatory.

"Large mirrors are to be fitted to traffic lights in London in a bid
to reduce the number of cyclists killed and seriously injured by left-
turning lorries.

The majority of cyclists killed in London are in collision with a
heavy goods vehicle and in most cases the lorry was turning left and
the driver failed to see the cyclist.

The new mirrors are designed to reduce the chance of this happening by
allowing the driver a view of anyone just below the front of the cab
or between the lorry and the kerb.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, last year came close to being
seriously injured by a lorry in an incident captured on CCTV.

Mirrors to be tested on ‘superhighways’

Subject to approval from the Department for Transport, the mirrors are
to be installed on new ‘cycle superhighways’ due to be launched next
month.

The improved cycle lanes will link the City and Colliers Wood, and
Barking and Tower Gateway with twenty-four miles of 1.5-metre wide
strips of blue coloured cycle lane — the first of twelve routes to be
built over the next five years..."

http://www.eta.co.uk/2010/06/24/cycle-safety-mirrors-be-mounted-london%E2%80%99s-traffic-lights?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> Seems like a good idea, perhaps. I still think HGV drivers should have
> cycle training and use vehicles with proper mirrors and sideguards,
> which should be mandatory.

Perhaps cyclists should be made to sit in the cab of a HGV, it might
make them wake up to the blind spots.

>
> "Large mirrors are to be fitted to traffic lights in London in a bid
> to reduce the number of cyclists killed and seriously injured by left-
> turning lorries.
>
> The majority of cyclists killed in London are in collision with a
> heavy goods vehicle and in most cases the lorry was turning left and
> the driver failed to see the cyclist.

Who has often rode into a dangerous position.

>
> The new mirrors are designed to reduce the chance of this happening by
> allowing the driver a view of anyone just below the front of the cab
> or between the lorry and the kerb.

Seems a good idea.

>
> Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, last year came close to being
> seriously injured by a lorry in an incident captured on CCTV.
>
> Mirrors to be tested on ‘superhighways’
>
> Subject to approval from the Department for Transport, the mirrors are
> to be installed on new ‘cycle superhighways’ due to be launched next
> month.
>
> The improved cycle lanes will link the City and Colliers Wood, and
> Barking and Tower Gateway with twenty-four miles of 1.5-metre wide
> strips of blue coloured cycle lane — the first of twelve routes to be
> built over the next five years..."
>
> http://www.eta.co.uk/2010/06/24/cycle-safety-mirrors-be-mounted-london%E2%80%99s-traffic-lights?
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


--
Tony Dragon

[Squashme]

On 26 June, 13:19, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Seems like a good idea, perhaps. I still think HGV drivers should have
> > cycle training and use vehicles with proper mirrors and sideguards,
> > which should be mandatory.
>
> Perhaps cyclists should be made to sit in the cab of a HGV, it might
> make them wake up to the blind spots.
>
>
>
> > "Large mirrors are to be fitted to traffic lights in London in a bid
> > to reduce the number of cyclists killed and seriously injured by left-
> > turning lorries.
>
> > The majority of cyclists killed in London are in collision with a
> > heavy goods vehicle and in most cases the lorry was turning left and
> > the driver failed to see the cyclist.
>
> Who has often rode into a dangerous position.
>
>
>
> > The new mirrors are designed to reduce the chance of this happening by
> > allowing the driver a view of anyone just below the front of the cab
> > or between the lorry and the kerb.
>
> Seems a good idea.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, last year came close to being
> > seriously injured by a lorry in an incident captured on CCTV.
>
> > Mirrors to be tested on superhighways
>
> > Subject to approval from the Department for Transport, the mirrors are
> > to be installed on new cycle superhighways due to be launched next
> > month.
>
> > The improved cycle lanes will link the City and Colliers Wood, and
> > Barking and Tower Gateway with twenty-four miles of 1.5-metre wide
> > strips of blue coloured cycle lane the first of twelve routes to be
> > built over the next five years..."
>
> >http://www.eta.co.uk/2010/06/24/cycle-safety-mirrors-be-mounted-londo...
>
> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> --
> Tony Dragon

HGV driver to cyclist: "Sorry mate, I didn't see you. There was a
light flashing in my eyes. That bloody mirror!"

[JNugent[_7_]]

Doug wrote:
> Seems like a good idea, perhaps. I still think HGV drivers should have
> cycle training and use vehicles with proper mirrors and sideguards,
> which should be mandatory.
>
> "Large mirrors are to be fitted to traffic lights in London in a bid
> to reduce the number of cyclists killed and seriously injured by left-
> turning lorries.
>
> The majority of cyclists killed in London are in collision with a
> heavy goods vehicle and in most cases the lorry was turning left and
> the driver failed to see the cyclist.

> The new mirrors are designed to reduce the chance of this happening by
> allowing the driver a view of anyone just below the front of the cab
> or between the lorry and the kerb.

A *bad* idea.

The situation, both practical and legal, should be the same at *every*
junction in the UK. Trying to "solve" the problem by blaming people for not
being able to see through solid steel panels is totally hare-brained.
Solutions which are provided only at selected locations (nd which therefore
muddy the real issue) are equally to be deplored.

The only real solution is obvious: *don't overtake on the nearside*, and
particularly not on the nearside of a lorry waiting to turn left at traffic
lights. That system works everywhere, without the need for mirrors to be
bought, erected and maintained, at cost to the txpayer.

> Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, last year came close to being
> seriously injured by a lorry in an incident captured on CCTV.

No, he didn't. But even if he had, it would be irrelevant.

> Subject to approval from the Department for Transport,

....which intelligent people must hope will NOT be forthcomiung...

> ...the mirrors are to be installed on new ‘cycle superhighways’
> due to be launched next month

[Colin McKenzie]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:05:29 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> The new mirrors are designed to reduce the chance of this happening by
>> allowing the driver a view of anyone just below the front of the cab
>> or between the lorry and the kerb.
>
> A *bad* idea.
>
> The situation, both practical and legal, should be the same at *every*
> junction in the UK. Trying to "solve" the problem by blaming people for
> not being able to see through solid steel panels is totally
> hare-brained. Solutions which are provided only at selected locations
> (nd which therefore muddy the real issue) are equally to be deplored.

I more or less agree with this.

> The only real solution is obvious: *don't overtake on the nearside*, and
> particularly not on the nearside of a lorry waiting to turn left at
> traffic lights. That system works everywhere, ...

No it doesn't. It doesn't cater for cases where the lorry overtakes the
cyclist, or stops behind/beside a cyclist who is already there, and the
driver then forgets the cyclist because he can no longer see her.

Bikeability cycle training helps by teaching cyclists to use a more
prominent road position where it's harder for lorries to come alongside.
ASLs if properly used and enforced help too.

Training for lorry drivers is essential.

But how can it be acceptable for drivers to go over a piece of road when
they have no idea if it's clear or not?

Personally I favour a compulsory redesign of lorry cabs to put drivers a
lot lower down.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[JNugent[_7_]]

Colin McKenzie wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:

>>> The new mirrors are designed to reduce the chance of this happening by
>>> allowing the driver a view of anyone just below the front of the cab
>>> or between the lorry and the kerb.

>> A *bad* idea.
>> The situation, both practical and legal, should be the same at *every*
>> junction in the UK. Trying to "solve" the problem by blaming people
>> for not being able to see through solid steel panels is totally
>> hare-brained. Solutions which are provided only at selected locations
>> (nd which therefore muddy the real issue) are equally to be deplored.

> I more or less agree with this.

>> The only real solution is obvious: *don't overtake on the nearside*,
>> and particularly not on the nearside of a lorry waiting to turn left
>> at traffic lights. That system works everywhere, ...

> No it doesn't.

<panto mode>

Oh yes, it does.

> It doesn't cater for cases where the lorry overtakes the
> cyclist, or stops behind/beside a cyclist who is already there, and the
> driver then forgets the cyclist because he can no longer see her.

Since it isn't meant to cater for those cases, and could not cater for such
cases in any event (what can, other than making careless driving an
offence?*), that is a non-sequitur.

[* Hang on... careless driving is already an offence.]

> Bikeability cycle training helps by teaching cyclists to use a more
> prominent road position where it's harder for lorries to come alongside.
> ASLs if properly used and enforced help too.

That's not relevant to what I said.

I agree that driving without due care and attention is an offence. But that
is a separate matter and doesn't only involve cyclists. I was addressing what
cyclists can and should do. In this context, I don't think it is helpful to
concentrate on the sort of obvious bad driving you describe, now matter how
infrequently it may be encountered, simply because it is outside the control
of those most at risk. OTOH, it is crucial that all road-users do realise
that very large vehicles can often make left turns (in driving-on-the-left
countries like the UK) only after a wide swing to the right. For that reason,
a flashing left-indicator should always be taken absolutely at its word,
irrespective of any intuition a following road-user might (mistakenly) feel
about the vehicle's "body language".

> Training for lorry drivers is essential.

Not relevant to what I said, and already done in any case (I'm sure that you
*must* have already heard about the two separate courses of driving
instruction and examination for lorry drivers). And see above.

> But how can it be acceptable for drivers to go over a piece of road when
> they have no idea if it's clear or not?

Not relevant to what I said. See above.

> Personally I favour a compulsory redesign of lorry cabs to put drivers a
> lot lower down.

Well, best of luck with that particular one, especially as goods vehicles are
built to internationally-agreed standards and designs. Perhaps you could also
arrange for public fountains to dispense a decent Claret? :-)

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:59:36 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> > JNugent > wrote:

> >> The situation, both practical and legal, should be the same at
> >> *every* junction in the UK. Trying to "solve" the problem by
> >> blaming people for not being able to see through solid steel
> >> panels is totally hare-brained. Solutions which are provided only
> >> at selected locations (nd which therefore muddy the real issue)
> >> are equally to be deplored.
>
> > I more or less agree with this.
>
> >> The only real solution is obvious: *don't overtake on the
> >> nearside*, and particularly not on the nearside of a lorry
> >> waiting to turn left at traffic lights. That system works
> >> everywhere, ...
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
> <panto mode>
>
> Oh yes, it does.

OK, please explain to me how it works when I stop in the middle of teh
'left turn and straight ahead' lane, and after I have stopped an HGV
pulls up tight alongside with some wheels in my lane and most of teh
vehicle in teh 'right turn' lane. Then, when teh lights change, the
HGV proceeds to turn left.

> Since it isn't meant to cater for those cases, and could not cater
> for such cases in any event (what can, other than making careless
> driving an offence?*), that is a non-sequitur.

Oh I see. It caters for all teh case that it caters for, but doesn't
cater for many cases, but that's ok because it doesn't cater for them.

Much like, say, putting mirrors on traffic lights. That caters very
well for all teh cases it caters very well for too. But hold on, you
were scornful of that becasue it doesn't cater for all places.

So is a partial solution acceptable or not?


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent[_7_]]

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:

>>>> The situation, both practical and legal, should be the same at
>>>> *every* junction in the UK. Trying to "solve" the problem by
>>>> blaming people for not being able to see through solid steel
>>>> panels is totally hare-brained. Solutions which are provided only
>>>> at selected locations (nd which therefore muddy the real issue)
>>>> are equally to be deplored.

>>> I more or less agree with this.

>>>> The only real solution is obvious: *don't overtake on the
>>>> nearside*, and particularly not on the nearside of a lorry
>>>> waiting to turn left at traffic lights. That system works
>>>> everywhere, ...

>>> No it doesn't.

>> <panto mode>
>> Oh yes, it does.

> OK, please explain to me how it works when I stop in the middle of teh
> 'left turn and straight ahead' lane, and after I have stopped an HGV
> pulls up tight alongside with some wheels in my lane and most of teh
> vehicle in teh 'right turn' lane. Then, when teh lights change, the
> HGV proceeds to turn left.

It doesn't. It isn't meant to. There was a heavy clue in the bit where I
*said* it wasn't meant to. You can't stop that from happening (it's a
different problem) and I didn't suggest that you can. The best you could do
would be to never undertake a lorry waiting to turn left at a set of lights.
That's all the (lawful) control you have.

That isn't controversial.

>> Since it isn't meant to cater for those cases, and could not cater
>> for such cases in any event (what can, other than making careless
>> driving an offence?*), that is a non-sequitur.

> Oh I see. It caters for all teh case that it caters for, but doesn't
> cater for many cases, but that's ok because it doesn't cater for them.

That's right. It works where it applies. A cyclist has control - to a certain
extent - in some circumstances. In others, he doesn't have so much control,
and in yet other circumstances, he has none at all. There's no recipe for
exercising control where there is none available, and I wasn't trying to
provide one. But you knew that and were just acting daft, weren't you?

> Much like, say, putting mirrors on traffic lights. That caters very
> well for all teh cases it caters very well for too. But hold on, you
> were scornful of that becasue it doesn't cater for all places.

Correct. You can't have one set of traffic laws in part of the UK and a
different set everywhere else.

> So is a partial solution acceptable or not?

A partial solution to what?

The problem which occurs when a cyclist undertakes a stationary lorry (a
frequent occurrence, ISTM) is not the same problem which occurs when a
lorry-driver maneouvres his vehicle so as to ignore a cyclist right in front
of him (a much less frequent occurrence, ISTM).

They don't have the same solution.

A solution to one is a total solution for that problem and a non-solution for
the other. There is no question of its a partial solution.