Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Brimstone) wrote:

Two lorries will be parked in Trafalgar Square, central London, to
allow other road users to see first hand how limited a lorry
driver's vision is.

If their vision is that limited, why are they allowed on the roads?

If their vision is that limited, why aren't they forced to have more
mirrors, or even periscopes?

On 26 Jun, 10:42, "Brimstone" wrote:
About time too!! It's not just cyclists who can benefit from this
opportunity, other road users should take the chance to have a look.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6240140.stm

Lorries highlight cycling danger

The dangers posed by lorries to cyclists and pedestrians are to be
highlighted in a road safety event.

Two lorries will be parked in Trafalgar Square, central London, to allow
other road users to see first hand how limited a lorry driver's vision is.

Metropolitan Police figures show that in 2006 nine cyclists were killed in
London in accidents involving lorries.

The two-day event this week follows a campaign launched in March urging
lorry drivers to look out for cyclists.

Ch Insp Mark Bird said: "Lots of people cycle in London and I'd encourage
people to come along and see first hand just how easy the cause of these
types of collisions can be and how easily avoidable they are.

"I have witnessed first hand the devastating affects that losing a loved one
or family member can have, and we are determined to do all we can to reduce
the risks to cyclists, and all road users."

In 2006 19 cyclists were killed in collisions - nine of which involved a
goods vehicle.

The year before 21 cyclists were killed, nine involved lorries and in 2004
four of eight accidents in which cyclists were killed involved lorries.

What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's safety is another man's killer.

Doug wrote:
On 26 Jun, 10:42, "Brimstone" wrote:
About time too!! It's not just cyclists who can benefit from this
opportunity, other road users should take the chance to have a look.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6240140.stm

Lorries highlight cycling danger

The dangers posed by lorries to cyclists and pedestrians are to be
highlighted in a road safety event.

Two lorries will be parked in Trafalgar Square, central London, to
allow other road users to see first hand how limited a lorry
driver's vision is.

Metropolitan Police figures show that in 2006 nine cyclists were
killed in London in accidents involving lorries.

The two-day event this week follows a campaign launched in March
urging lorry drivers to look out for cyclists.

Ch Insp Mark Bird said: "Lots of people cycle in London and I'd
encourage people to come along and see first hand just how easy the
cause of these types of collisions can be and how easily avoidable
they are.

"I have witnessed first hand the devastating affects that losing a
loved one or family member can have, and we are determined to do all
we can to reduce the risks to cyclists, and all road users."

In 2006 19 cyclists were killed in collisions - nine of which
involved a goods vehicle.

The year before 21 cyclists were killed, nine involved lorries and
in 2004 four of eight accidents in which cyclists were killed
involved lorries.

What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.

Probably because that's not what the subject is about.

Doug wrote:



What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.


That must be why the pavement barriers are constructed in either mesh or
bars, the crushed cyclist mush will have room to escape harmlessly on
to the pavement without leaving the road slippery for legitimate paying
users.

In message .com, Doug
writes
What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.
Fault of the cyclist for undertaking, (pun?)
--
Clive.

Clive. wrote:
In message .com, Doug
writes
What it fails to mention is the number of cyclists who have been
crushed against pavement barriers.
Fault of the cyclist for undertaking, (pun?)

Why weren't they safely on the pavement like usual?

In message , NM
writes
Why weren't they safely on the pavement like usual?
Perhaps because the pavements are for peds, not bikers.
--
Clive.