The DVSA have just published a new guide on sideguards, link below. This is going to cause fun at MOT time. The reference to ‘existing guard’ seems to imply that this is going to be made retrospective.
cav551:
The DVSA have just published a new guide on sideguards, link below. This is going to cause fun at MOT time. The reference to ‘existing guard’ seems to imply that this is going to be made retrospective.
they can to anything to lorries 
but the lemmings who wander around free from their madhouse CAN NOT BE HELPED BORIS. 
wake up sheeple 
cav551:
The DVSA have just published a new guide on sideguards, link below. This is going to cause fun at MOT time. The reference to ‘existing guard’ seems to imply that this is going to be made retrospective.
Whys that then ?
What a load of crap. Why don’t we fit cow catchers like Toby the Tram engine, have a bell on the front and a man waving a red flag yelling “unclean, unclean!”?
cav551:
The DVSA have just published a new guide on sideguards, link below. This is going to cause fun at MOT time. The reference to ‘existing guard’ seems to imply that this is going to be made retrospective.
The page starts off with the wording “This guide is to encourage best practice, by showing examples of good and bad practice.” to me this implies non of these upgrades are required, but is suggesting how they can be improved for the better (and some good ides in there) “Best Practise” is usually a forerunner for a change in law, so I would suspect what is being suggested will likely become compulsory on new vehicles sometime in the future
Don’t forget that’s it’s deemed “best practice” to be FORS accredited, yet that’s a enormous waste of time and money.
Muckaway:
What a load of crap. Why don’t we fit cow catchers like Toby the Tram engine, have a bell on the front and a man waving a red flag yelling “unclean, unclean!”?
Yea but, yours are Unclean Nathan, all that driving off road around Quarries & muddy sites. [emoji12]
Bluey Circles:
The page starts off with the wording “This guide is to encourage best practice, by showing examples of good and bad practice.” to me this implies none of these upgrades are required, but is suggesting how they can be improved for the better (and some good ides in there) “Best Practise” is usually a forerunner for a change in law, so I would suspect what is being suggested will likely become compulsory on new vehicles sometime in the future
It does go on to say: “To help you identify the common errors and direct you to the current published required standards.”
While this is referring to Initial Vehicle Inspections, past experience indicates that there are going to be differences between two peoples’ interpretation come MOT presentation in the future. Sideguards and Spray Suppression have a history of causing difficulties and disputes over one inch.
Wouldn’t it be easier to give cyclists 3 large bags of cotton wool?
cav551:
Bluey Circles:
The page starts off with the wording “This guide is to encourage best practice, by showing examples of good and bad practice.” to me this implies none of these upgrades are required, but is suggesting how they can be improved for the better (and some good ides in there) “Best Practise” is usually a forerunner for a change in law, so I would suspect what is being suggested will likely become compulsory on new vehicles sometime in the futureIt does go on to say: “To help you identify the common errors and direct you to the current published required standards.”
While this is referring to Initial Vehicle Inspections, past experience indicates that there are going to be differences between two peoples’ interpretation come MOT presentation in the future. Sideguards and Spray Suppression have a history of causing difficulties and disputes over one inch.
And, the new generation of testers are, to put it mildly, very very keen to trip you up
This will have them salivating 
Why not put the money into advertising to teach empty headed morons that lorrys are dangerous,like the green cross code taught kids to look out when crossing the road,why push the blame on us for their stupidity.
In the real world it won’t make much difference to the issue of cyclists being knocked to the ground and going under the wheels of a turning vehicle.
Carryfast:
In the real world it won’t make much difference to the issue of cyclists being knocked to the ground and going under the wheels of a turning vehicle.
Sadly the real world does’t apply to many cyclists,why should it ,it’s always our fault anyway 
It seems that it is all based on this report from some professors of exactly what? at Knotty Ash University.
All this is good for is a slight glancing blow. It seems a large amount of the fatal accidents are from cyclists coming into contact with LGVs whilst the lorry is turning. This will not do anything in those cases.
Don’t believe any of this crap. It isn’t about reducing deaths. If it was, guess what cyclists would be given some hard education in London, along with drivers. Some hard talk both sides. I’ve never seen such a one-way look at causal reasons for accidents. It’s actually laughable, even more laughable that people aren’t questioning why they’re being taken for idiots.
But then Boris" is a very clever, dangerous man. He knows his conservative electorate is most likely made up of middle England, middle class cycling types, particularly in London, and not lorry drivers. Hence cyclists float along on this holier than thou cloud, untouched by so much as even heavy government advice. Funny this. Anyone would think they’re all 4 year olds that can’t be spoken to without kid gloves. The perfect ivory tower wheeled out every time “vulnerable road user”. Is that a euphemism for “no brain within” or, in no way educatable or culpable, or open to investigation and improvement?
Any smoke screen measure such as this are purely an electoral tool. The monkey see-monkey do government agencies just follow blindly.