Family's disappointment as EU shelves HGV safety proposals

It is not just politicians who put a price on a life. You do.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question: If it were shown that we could save 6 lives a year by fitting sensors to trucks but it would double the cost of everything you buy in the shops, thus making many things you now enjoy (e.g. food) unaffordable for you and certainly for the poorest in society, increasing inflation, causing companies to go to the wall and thousands to be made unemployed, would you argue that doing so is a moral imperative or not?

And if you decide not, would you like to face the families of those 6 people and tell them it just wasn't worth saving their lives? Well, politicians have to make that kind of decision -- and ask the public to vote for them too!

You might argue in my hypothetical case that the economic cost might actually cause more deaths, e.g. by malnutrition or increased suicide among the unemployed. Again, even more modest (and realistic) costs do have an effect. Increasing costs might really make truck companies lay off workers -- we have to decide, are the measures we are asking for really cost-effective? 'Cost' is not just a monetary term: it applies to costs in people's well being, health and all sorts and at some level we all make decisions about whether something is worth it or not. Do I take the car, which is cheaper, or the train, which is safer (valuing my own life here)? I could go on.

All I am saying is, it might appear to be a moral imperative to save people's lives, but cost is not somehow a dirty thing to think about, and we must be sure of the effectiveness of the measures.

Using statistics to decide the acceptable amount of dead cyclists so money does not need to be spent is quite common amongst politicians. If it was there realitive who was at risk they would act differently. I live in the US and am able to avoid these kinds of incidents. Education of the cyclists would help reduce these deaths also. Training the drivers and cyclists how to be more observent and how to avoid dangerous situations would also go a long way. I have observed one hit and run and sever close calls cause by people just not understand what will happen. Pulling up the side of a large vehicle in there blind spot or having the large vehicle pass you and forget you are there after you are in your blind spot is a major cause of incidents. even with cars.

While I understand people's not wanting the authorities to drag their feet when lives may be at risk, I do think that in this instance there has been a rush to demand legislation before the case for sensors/cameras (different things) has been proven. They are new and more studies are required until we know, for example:
- do they assist or merely distract drivers?
- do they lead to over-reliance on them, to the detriment of driver's being aware of their surroundings? (Does the correspondent above now reverse without really looking? I shudder.)
- do they work reliably?
- do they give false positives that might lead to warnings being ignored?
And finally, are they cost effective? You cannot just say, 'Regardless of the financial cost, the moral argument is that sensors should be fitted.' The logic here goes something like:
1. Something should be done about the problem.
2. Sensors (or cameras) are something.
3. Therefore sensors must be fitted.
That argument ignores all the previous questions (i.e. is the measure effective -- and I suggest we need their being fitted in enough vehicles over sufficient period of time to get the data to make an assessment. Decisions made while something is a novelty often turn out to be flawed once the technology becomes familiar and taken for granted, e.g. we might see driver's allowing their awareness to lapse once they get used to relying on the technology, even if that does not tend to happen at first.)

I know it seems callous to try to put a monetary value on a human life, but 'cost effectiveness' is relative. Why fit expensive technology when adding an extra mirror or window would do the job as well?

What we CAN do straight away is conduct safety campaigns to raise drivers' and cyclists' awareness of the risk, and start to tackle the worst examples of blind spots in HGVs without imposing a huge financial burden on companies without sufficient evidence of justification.

Worst case scenario -- these things actually make the death rate worse! Do we KNOW they won't?

I have real problems with people relying on sensors to "help" their driving. Cyclists need to wake up to the dangers of close proximity to large vehicles at junctions/lights. And the operators of these vehicles need more training and more accountability for how they operate those vehicles. How many people take notice of alarms of any kind. To me the sensor would only be of use if it immobilized the vehicle until the cause of the alarm wad out of harms way.

"Sorry mate I didn't see/hear it" would become new maxim.

The EU have a habit of bringing in daft rules that make no sense and cost a fortune... Now they say a cyclists life isn't worth the price of a few sensors

do we not then run the risk of sensor reliance taking away something a driver should be looking for though?.

an example i will give is i have rear parking sensors on my car. they are brilliant. so brilliant infact i no longer feel the need to look behind me when reverse parking. if those sensors had a 'moment' i could end up crashing because the sensors have taken away the need for me to acknowledge whats behind me.

if i drive a different car my awareness drastically changes.

The 37,000 (or 1,870,000) to 400 comparison makes it seem obvious that the sensors are the correct choice, but you need to multiply that by a) the number of cyclists killed and b) the number of lorries. I have no idea whether the numbers add up - on a purely economic basis - but this kind of poor reporting does us no favours.

Regardless of the financial cost, the moral argument is that sensors should be fitted.

Seems odd that we allow vehicles with driver blind spots on the roads in the first place. Perhaps the EU could be persuaded to revisit these rules too?

Cities could bring in rules (like london has on emissions) about the kind of vehicles allowed on their roads? Perhaps drivers of the wrong sort of vehicles rather than be banned cd pay more to use the streets.