"Is it April First?" Councillor criticises lorry cycle safety measures

I have been fitting a similar system at work (Tier 2 LGV manufacturers), I christened it the "Shit Yourself Alarm" for fairly obvious reasons & had a chat with the customer about why they were being fitted. Full 4 camera system also fitted, so the above argument about indicator being used just before crushing cyclist/pedestrian does not hold up. Video system is GPS fixed & knows what the time is, as well as where you are. A very good system really, but the alarm would indeed make you shit yourself if it started to go off beside you at a set of lights...

I'm all for technologies on vehicles making vulnerable road users safer (it would make a change from the safety arms-race for vehicle occupants) but I am a little sceptical about this.

The assertion seems to be that drivers of bin lorries and similar are signaling their intention to turn left in good time, indicators are flashing away etc. and cyclists are proceeding up the nearside of these vehicles because they haven't seen the signal. Much more likely is that:
a) cyclist sees the indicator and proceeds anyway perhaps recklessly, through ignorance of the risks or due to cues from infrasture design or road markings.
b) driver fails to indicate in good time or at all.

I'm not sure that a brighter or louder signal is going to do much good. Cyclists can still ignore it and drivers can still fail to use it.

Having a vehicle reversing alarm on a lorry doesn't stop the driver reversing into a bollard any more than a vehicle turning alarm will stop the driver from crushing a cyclist.

Call me cynical but, can't wait for the court case where the cyclist pulls up at a red light then said bin lorry comes up alongside without indicating so therefore no turn alarm then only when the lights change actually indicates (as a lot of drivers do) turns and crushes cyclist. The driver will automatically claim well I used turn alarm so it was obviously the cyclists fault!

as long as the drivers are utilising the technology in conjunction with their mirrors etc i think its a pretty good idea.
anyone thats ever stepped into anything bigger than a car derived van knows as the van/truck gets bigger the visability goes down considerably.
hopefully it makes it safer rather than easier to shift blame.

"...and it will clamp down on spurious claims against the council. "
Call me cynical...

total bastards! How dare they try and make it safer for cyclists! More victim blaming

'Yep, and both rely on the driver actually using them...'

Indeed. And the cyclist not ignoring them.

They have reversing alarms and lots of them have cameras all round now so I can't see why adding a left turning alarm is really an issue.
I'd rather a lorry had an automatic audible alarm if there's an arse driving it. It would be better not driven by an arse, but there you are.

Perfectly
Reasonable
Individualistic
Caring
Krafter

'It will make cyclists clearly aware that the vehicles are going to turn'

Do normal indicators not already do this?

Personally I think the onus should be on the driver to check that it is clear top turn left, rather than having an audible warning telling cyclists 'I am turning left now, get out of my way'

Is this not like a form of enhanced indicator? Why are we opposing that?

The question should be whether fitting this system will make it acceptable to just indicate left and turn without checking properly, and of course you can then blame the cyclist for being crushed, because they didn't listen and get out of the way...

How many crushed cyclists does he consider the minimum before the use of this technology is cost effective? Does being in opposition mean everything should be opposed?

No doubt councillor Britcliffe would rather have spent the money on a new golf course for his cronies .