Blood on the streets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_pilot

Road-going version of the above, charged with the safe conduct of a heavy vehicle whilst within the M25

You could even just retro-fit all city going HGVs with an external seat at the rear-left of the vehicle (like some american fire engines) and pay someone to sit in it with a button that says whether it's clear or not. Would be pretty damn cheap & easy to do.

I'm imagining an official HGV pilot would be on a motorbike, with a radio link to the cab.

That way the pilot could position himself in the blind spot/wherever needed and tell the driver when it was safe, when to stop etc.

Would require zero changes to the vehicles.

They'd just end up getting left hooked and called off due to health & safety.

How about giving the plastic police and traffic wardens something better to do...

OK just seen another rider down fatality thread. I'm now seething.

This will be remembered as Black November.

I love the idea of low-cabbed construction lorries. Totally possible, if they were the only hgv cabs allowed. You could chat to them at lights.

Just beating a dead horse a bit more, but you could take this already established role (on construction sites) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksman and extend it to being responsible for the vehicle whilst in an urban environment.

Ugh, today has left me quite shaken, particularly as Camberwell used to be on my commute and Camden is just down the road from me. There aren't any easy answers, but something really needs to be done.

I can't find the link but on Radio 4 there was a program that mentioned a retrofit device for lorries.

It's a sensor system that tells the driver if there is a cyclist in close proximity to the vehicle. It relies on a £400 system fitted to the truck and for cyclists to add a £20 transmitter to the bike frame.

It doesn't tick all the boxes but it was a novel idea. You could make it a condition of trucks entering London (or any other build up area for that matter) to have one fitted.

However while, I would hope, the majority of readers of this forum would buy one it means persuading cyclists to get one.

I remember that, it was blasted because it was a very stupid ideas - what happen to the cyclists who doesn't have the transmitter? the driver's attention will be diverted to hearing the beep rather than actually looking properly, etc.

The only major impact is the attitude and education of drivers to make it safer to drive in London.

I remember that, it was blasted because it was a very stupid ideas - what happen to the cyclists who doesn't have the transmitter? the driver's attention will be diverted to hearing the beep rather than actually looking properly, etc.

There was that too...

I've seen a sensor system in operation at TRL (http://www.lfgss.com/thread107807.html) Not impressed
Agree with Ed. Drivers can be more distracted with some of this tech. Training really works and changes attitudes as well as behavious. There is often such a lot of cyclist hate at the start pf many of these driver training sessions that in most cases gets turned around once they get on a bike, on a road with a lorry on their back wheel.

On BBC London News just now, in response to the latest death this afternoon;

"City Hall have announced that next week there will be 2,000 extra tax collectors* on the streets to police all road users"

As David Cameron would say, it beggars belief.

*not sure if the news reader said officers or tax collectors, sorry

There was a similar thread to this one made a few years ago after a spate of HGV/cyclist deaths, iirc there was an ex-HGV driver who gave his thoughts on one thread. Reading through this thread after the terrible news of a sixth death in a fortnight I have to generally agree with this point

Be rigorous about the cost/benefit analysis of any intervention

I'm convinced if we as riders want to enact any sort of change we need to start small. I don't think aiming to ban HGVs from inner London during rush hours will get us anywhere, it will face too much opposition and will like mdcc said have many knock-on effects. I think doing a multitude of small things will be both practical and will get support from both the haulage/construction industry, government, and riders. Things that are not going to be too problematic for either camp. Some thoughts:

1. Mirrors. How has the tech come along in the last few years? Needs to be something big, that offers width and curved at the bottom to let the driver see down by his farside wheel arch. Increasing the visibility of this blind spot,with these newer mirrors may go some way to stopping future needless deaths. If it isn't made law to have them retrofitted it must be cheap enough for construction firms to buy them and fit them. If not there could be an appropriate insurance premium deduction for HGVs fitted them, forced by law, for an important economic incentive. Sensors too, but sensors are not as fit&forget as a good mirror.
   
   

Driver training. I'm not sure what kind of tests these guys need to pass and I assume it's fairly rigorous, but could there be an added cycle-awareness element to the theory/practical test? Could be as simple as a few extra questions or something on a hazard perception test.

Hi-Viz. Isn't this stuff cheap enough to pretty much give away now? TfL could run a scheme giving it out to cyclists at junctions in a package, along with a leaflet warning riders to hold back where there are HGVs and not to go down the inside. Pictures too, as plenty of cyclists in London are from abroad. Hi-Viz could also be given free with every bike purchase, or given free/cheap to riders via bike shops. I really think hi-viz clothing makes a big difference in being seen, so this could help prevent a lot of injuries or near misses too.

Lights: OK these won't be given away free but maybe a model could be govt subsidised? I heard of a scheme in Holland where police would stop riders with no lights and force them to buy+fit a pair from the police themselves. I know London isn't Amsterdam and not sure if plod would go along with this but it's an idea.

OK just seen another rider down fatality thread. I'm now seething.

This will be remembered as Black November.

I love the idea of low-cabbed construction lorries. Totally possible, if they were the only hgv cabs allowed. You could chat to them at lights.
Me too. It's terrible.

A further annoyance was reading a text in the Metro today from a lorry driver which said: "London's roads weren't built for bicycles. Go figure."

As if they were built for 20 tonne articulated death traps!!!

Heh, they were built for pedestrians, then horses, then carts - if we are looking at priorities based on relative traffic densities.

Exactly.

There was a similar thread to this one made a few years ago after a spate of HGV/cyclist deaths, iirc there was an ex-HGV driver who gave his thoughts on one thread. Reading through this thread after the terrible news of a sixth death in a fortnight I have to generally agree with this point

I'm convinced if we as riders want to enact any sort of change we need to start small. I don't think aiming to ban HGVs from inner London during rush hours will get us anywhere, it will face too much opposition and will like mdcc said have many knock-on effects. I think doing a multitude of small things will be both practical and will get support from both the haulage/construction industry, government, and riders. Things that are not going to be too problematic for either camp. Some thoughts:

1. Mirrors. How has the tech come along in the last few years? Needs to be something big, that offers width and curved at the bottom to let the driver see down by his farside wheel arch. Increasing the visibility of this blind spot,with these newer mirrors may go some way to stopping future needless deaths. If it isn't made law to have them retrofitted it must be cheap enough for construction firms to buy them and fit them. If not there could be an appropriate insurance premium deduction for HGVs fitted them, forced by law, for an important economic incentive. Sensors too, but sensors are not as fit&forget as a good mirror.
   
   

Driver training. I'm not sure what kind of tests these guys need to pass and I assume it's fairly rigorous, but could there be an added cycle-awareness element to the theory/practical test? Could be as simple as a few extra questions or something on a hazard perception test.

Hi-Viz. Isn't this stuff cheap enough to pretty much give away now? TfL could run a scheme giving it out to cyclists at junctions in a package, along with a leaflet warning riders to hold back where there are HGVs and not to go down the inside. Pictures too, as plenty of cyclists in London are from abroad. Hi-Viz could also be given free with every bike purchase, or given free/cheap to riders via bike shops. I really think hi-viz clothing makes a big difference in being seen, so this could help prevent a lot of injuries or near misses too.

Lights: OK these won't be given away free but maybe a model could be govt subsidised? I heard of a scheme in Holland where police would stop riders with no lights and force them to buy+fit a pair from the police themselves. I know London isn't Amsterdam and not sure if plod would go along with this but it's an idea.

asking for too little is almost always a mistake (at least in this kind of politics). key is to ask for more than you think you'll get. the first demand sets the framework for the negotiation.

we should try to move the focus away from hi-viz. there's no evidence it makes anyone safer - and it may make riders appear more competent to drivers who will then give less room, not more.

in fact, we should try to move the focus away from cyclist actions entirely. a key point would be to assume all collisions where a vehicle hits a cyclist are caused by dangerous driving on the part of the driver - until proved otherwise. this is particularly the case for left hook incidents, where, right now, the blind spot excuse seems to be enough for drivers to get off the hook. if you turn left, and hit a cyclist on the inside, it's always your fault, blind-spot or not.

Coppers were waiting outside Oval tube station tonight, they stopped one cyclist who was in a Hi-Viz jacket but had no visible lights- I could hear him saying to them "look, I've got lights, but the batteries are flat".

1. Mirrors. How has the tech come along in the last few years? Needs to be something big, that offers width and curved at the bottom to let the driver see down by his farside wheel arch. Increasing the visibility of this blind spot,with these newer mirrors may go some way to stopping future needless deaths.
   
   

A company that makes these mirrors could be a potential ally in getting them fitted by law.

All HGVs built since 2000 should have so-called 4th mirror (which covers the area immediately front left of driver's cab) fitted, either at time of sale or retroactively.

Legislation has been in force since 2008.

I made a similar suggestion the other day and bill posted the above regarding the mirrors

nick ferrari and others on LBC have form when it comes to dedicating entire shows to trotting out anti cycle propaganda to the point where you'd be forgiven for thinking it's editorial policy. they are a commercial station whose core audience appear to be angry traffic jam bound commuters and pig ignorant london cabbies, so it's hardly surprising.

Not sure I fully agree with this. At the risk of repeating myself, a lot of it is the conflation of two different issues

The annoying: dark clothing, RLJ, failing to communicate with other road users, headphones

versus

Potentially lethal: texting, not indicating, not checking mirrors, close passes- too fast, close rljs, 100% trust in cycle infrastructure

One of these groups is far more visible than the other so it's easy to see why one gets held up as the sole source of everything that is wrong on the roads and incorrectly used to blame victims and the other seems to fly under the radar.
Nick F is a fat cunt anyway. Fuck him. Listen to James O'brien shits all over him. Better still message him with these concerns about Fact & Perception® and see if he fancies dedicating part of his show toward this topic and get some balance.

People only care when things financially affect them.

Fit compuslory telemetry devices in all new vehicles and retrofit them with MOTs over the next 3 years.

Automatic fines for speeding, jumping red lights, lane infractions. These kinds of things would induce a huge change in driving culture.

The data would also be very useful in assessing what happened in crashes, including did a driver slow down when exiting a junction, did they indicate sufficiently early. Make the devices be activated by PIN, fingerprint or similar. Road tax renewal could also be recorded...

Use technology to enforce the laws.

Insurance companies are already contemplating offering drivers this kind of data recording. If your driving pattern indicates you drive like a cunt (speeding, aggressive acceleration and deceleration) your premium goes up. Drive like a civilised human and your premium reduces.