Two thirds of HGVs are fitted with hands free kits, known to increase crash risk by four times

Eliminating the blind spots is not a complete solution, the driver can only look at one thing at a time, and when moving, obviously ahead is the main priority.

The length is the issue, but there needs to be audio or some other alert as the driver can't look ahead, left, right, and down the front all at once.

We all rely on road haulage for our lives, delivering everything from milk to bicycles, maybe we need to rethink our consumerist lifestyles.

Even a co driver monitoring is not a proper answer.

All areas need improvement, not just lorry drivers.

Unless there is rigorous enforcement of the law any road user is free to break the law as they choose. As there is little enforcement, this will continue to be the case.

Driving with hands free devices! Driving in their pants.

That will explain why some of the driving is so poor, Their hands are elsewhere, distracting them in another way.

In London, about half of cyclist deaths have involved HGVs for the last couple of decades . A similar NUMBER of pedestrians are killed (although much lower PROPORTION of pedestrian deaths).

The Serious Injury proportion is much lower, although they are more likely to be life changing as the big problem is being crushed under wheels, with loss of limbs involved. Similarly slight injuries: remember that the vast majority of reported cyclist casualties do not involve trucks.

Outside urban areas the proportion (for cyclists) goes down, but there are issues with car occupants and other motorised users being at risk which increase.

Good post by Bez IMO.

For latest on lorry safety see http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/06/04/scania-trucks-keeping-children-safe-whats-... with a section on what could be done ( "The HGV problem in context")

Quote:

Lorries, which are only 5% of traffic on roads, are involved in 23% of cyclist deaths

I'm sure I read the figures are 5% and 50%.

I'm not sure Les Owen's comments are entirely accurate. The majority of costs involved in a crash are borne by others: the public sector handles operations at the scene and subsequent medical treatment, insurance (the settlements of which are spread across all the insurer's customers) covers third party liabilities, and so on.

It seems that the HGV operators actually foot very little of the overall bill; a delay in delivering one truckload of goods, possibly some minor harm to reputation is some cases—but even then, well, cyclists get into blind spots, don't they? That assumption of non-fault with the driver an operator can be viewed in action on the internet this morning with the news of another woman crushed under a skip lorry; no-one really minds that a few people get crushed by trucks.

Indeed, from what I've seen, it's remarkably easy for small operators to avoid sanctions after a crash by simply closing their business and starting a phoenix firm with a new licence. Barry Meyer's operator history makes for interesting reading, as one example.

Until these things change, and industry's "zero harm" policies are made to apply to the public highway as well as on-site, of course operators will under-use safety equipment and of course they'll use phones in the cab. Simple economics surely dictates that.

Quote:

“Blind spot devices and safety management kit like telematics have huge potential to reduce crashes and casualties, and bring down associated costs for the operator,” he said.

looking at the image above, I can't help thinking that making the lower door panel transparent would be a simple and effective solution.

Quote:

Lorries, which are only 5% of traffic on roads, are involved in 23% of cyclist deaths and 13% of pedestrian deaths, with blind spots the second biggest contributory factor.

These stats are crazy. Lorries are responsible for more cycling deaths than drink drivers. What bullshit excuses do they have for not implementing life-saving technology?