LibLink | Alan Beith: “Road safety is not an optional extra”

Sir Alan Beith MP, who is presenting the Road Safety Bill to the House of Commons today, has a piece over at ePolitix urging the Government to do all it can to reduce the number of road deaths – because of their social, emotional and financial cost:

I want to see better protection for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users, along with better support for HGV drivers who face being involved in fatal accidents because of blind spots on their vehicles. A family in my constituency approached me for help after the death of their much loved daughter and sister, Eilidh Cairns, who was killed when a lorry collided with her as she cycled to work in London.

This Bill proposes powers for the secretary of state to bring in measures to require blindspot eliminating equipment as standard on new HGVs and to encourage retrofitting on HGVs already operating on the our roads. This can include vehicle reversing camera/monitor systems, reversing alarms, movement sensors, ultrasonic proximity sensors, thermal imaging cameras and digital recorders – all of which can help to reduce the risk of collision.

I am hopeful that this proposal will be brought in across Europe, following the support of Written Declaration 81 by over 400 MEPs and the efforts of my colleague Fiona Hall MEP. But I want the government to send out a clear message that safety on our roads is a top priority, not an optional extra.

Read the full piece at ePolitix.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in LibLink.

One Comment

  • Old Codger Chris 21st May '11 - 5:24pm

    I agree. And I’m VERY careful when overtaking a continental registered HGV which, of course, is left hand drive. In a TV programme some time ago, Quentin Willson showed how hard it was for these drivers to see behind them. And that’s assuming they’re responsible drivers who’ve had enough sleep.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Denis Loretto
    If the overall target of 380,000 had been retained in the original motion together with the other sensible provisions in that motion I reckon not a ripple would...
  • Fiona
    As someone who has a lot of professional interactions with developers, I think it's correct that they'll use targets as an excuse to further reduce the quality ...
  • Chris Moore
    It's a target; it's an expression of intent. And that as a country we must do better on housing. The fact it'd be very difficult to meet is precisely the po...
  • Barry Lofty
    Nonconformistradical: Hear Hear!!...
  • Nonconformistradical
    "I notice that the argument against targets was that these hadn’t been met in the past." I voted against Amendment 1 because I really could not see how, wi...