France, Sweden and Italy delay introduction of safer lorries

At the end of the day, it's the DRIVER who is responsible for safe passage. No amount of "safety measures" to vehicles will help until their drivers learn to operate their vehicles in a safe manner and in consideration of other road users.

That low front end is never going to be implemented, or, there will be so many exemptions that it may as well not be included. The reason? The front approach angle is too low.

I note that the wording is "Crash box can be fitted"; notice the use of the word 'can' not 'will'.

The blind spot to the front has been reduced a little but the blind spot on the nearside has not been addressed.

The problem that as soon as an articulated vehicle starts to turn the mirrors on the inside radius are 'blind' will still be there. Could it be argued that articulated vehicle should only be allowed to enter urban areas at certain times if at all?

Everything in the new design seems geared to mitigate the results of an impact rather than prevent it happening in the first place.

One step forward: Two steps back.

Even if the article in the Evening Standard is only partly true (perhaps due to crucial omissions), its publication could turn into a PR disaster for Renault and Fiat if UK cyclists launch an internet campaign requiring these companies to clarify their position. The campaign could be extended to the whole EU. Consumers are no longer toothless...

UKIP again highlights the failure and danger of dogmatic political groupings.

Is the design lifecycle of a lorry really so slow?

It's not as if they've been asked to convert to hydrogen or electric, something that probably would takes many years to develop. It's just a different shape cab, and not that different.

Even when these eventually appear, it will take many, many years for the previous generations to disappear.

I think you meant to have your sub-heading including the word "not"?

So ze Germans and the Dutch are happy to have an opportunity to sell new models denied....or did they just manage to keep their names out of the press and let the others take the flak.

The annoying part of all this is that the new vehicles can be used already. The legislation is to mandate it's introduction. The ones at biggest fault here are the manufacturers for not introducing the new designs. The politicos are just complicit.

This is pretty shameful. There are people working for these truck manufacturers, they are not just faceless corporations. When those people were children, if you'd told them that when they grew up, they would put corporate profits before 1,000 lives, I wonder if they would have been ashamed.

By the way, the sub-heading is wrong - there's a missing 'not'.

Lets just remember, no government actually work for the people, they work for themselves and big business.
All we can do is keep rattling the cage.

So when is collision avoidance tech becoming mandatory on all new vehicles?