Yes and yes. They are talking about mirrors & blind spots but do not yet have a rule. The famous danger point of this autumn is Bow Roundabout: http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/bow-roundabout.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqmTB2U90FQ

Both of them. The common factor in most of the tragedies was trucks with blind spots not covered by their mirrors.

Here is Simon Jenkins view of London cyclists ‘But then wildcat cycling is a facet of London’s zany street culture. It is the citizen pitching anarchy against regulation, personal freedom against a draconian state. Like many freedoms, this one is dangerous — but not as dangerous as headlines suggest.’ http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/simon-jenkins-roads-will-be-risky-for-cyclists-whatever-we-do-8948926.html I do not think Londoners are aggressive, even now, but they have always been willing to take up arms for a good cause – as Charles I, Napoleon and Hitler discovered. London cyclists are now manning and womaning the barricades.

All suggestions for imaginative protests gratefully received!
In Germany and Japan (for example) they mark cycle lanes on pavements. In London there are some pavements (eg Regent Street) where not a single cyclist could be accommodated. But there are other very-wide pavements with hardly any pedestrians. So they should look at the issue yard-by-yard and not have any general principle.
Another problem in London is that cyclists have boy-racer-wildcat habits. They are not not gentlefolk, like Japanese cyclists, or well-behaved, like Dutch cyclists. So it can be a real issue if pedestrians or dogs, let alone trucks, stray onto cycle lanes.

This would disrupt pedestrians – rather than endanger their lives – but make the point that cyclists don’t belong on pavements (because they endanger pedestrians) and don’t belong on roads (because they are endangered by cars) but need their own transit space.