- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cyclists stay back sticker (CC licensed image by happy days photos and art:Flickr)Cyclists’ organisations unite against ‘stay back’ stickers
Cycling and road safety organisations have called on Transport for London to remove ‘Cyclists Stay Back’ stickers from its vehicles and to tell operators such as Hackney cab owners not to attach them.
The demand comes in a joint statement from the Road Danger Reduction Forum, CTC, London Cycling Campaign, RoadPeace and the Association of Bikeability Schemes.
The stickers have angered many cyclists who see them as putting responsibility for cycling safety on the victims and potential victims of driver carelessness, and as implying that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicles.
Those two points make up the first of the organisations’ comments about the ‘stay back stickers’, which in full are:
-
The ‘cyclists stay back’ wording is not acceptable for use on any vehicle, because of its implication that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicle users.
It also undermines the responsibility of drivers of such vehicles to use their nearside mirrors as required by the Highway Code in Rules 159,161,163, 169, 179, 180, 182, 184, and 202.
Non-use of nearside mirrors is associated with a significant proportion of incidents where cyclists are hit by motor vehicles. - It is not appropriate to have stickers aimed at cyclists on the back of any vehicle smaller than a heavy goods vehicle.
- Stickers are appropriate on the rear of high-cab lorries, because of these vehicles’ blind areas, and the resultant danger to other road users.
- Stickers on lorries should be worded as warnings rather than commands, with appropriate graphics. A suitable graphic [below] is attached.
The organisations have therefore called for the stickers to be removed from all vehicles except high-cab lorries by the end of March, and for more appropriate stickers to be designed for use on London buses and to replace the stickers currently on high-cab lorries.
Perhaps more importantly, the five bodies have taken the opportunity to reiterate what they see as a far better long-term solution to the problem of cyclist deaths and serious injuries in London caused by HGVs. Calling stickers, “literally, a sticking-plaster solution”, the five groups have called for TfL to promote the use of lorries that do not have blind spots around the cab, to engineer the highway to reduce potential conflict, and to ensure drivers are trained to check their mirrors properly when turning or changing lane.
The demands in full are:
- FORS [Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme] to instruct their members to remove ‘cyclists stay back’ stickers from all vehicles except high-cab heavy goods vehicles, by the end of March.
- London Buses to instruct operators to remove ‘cyclists stay back’ stickers from all buses, until such time as a more appropriate design and wording is agreed with cycling organisations, by the end of March.
- TfL to inform all other vehicle operators, such as Hackney carriages (London Taxi Drivers Association etc.) that TfL do not want such stickers to be used on their vehicles, by the end of March.
- TfL to develop and produce a more appropriate sticker for heavy goods vehicles, similar to the one attached to this statement, and agree the design and wording with cycling organisations, by the end of May.
- TfL to supply the new sticker to freight operators, with instructions only to use it on high-cab lorries. This should be in widespread use by the end of August, with no ‘cyclists stay back’ stickers remaining after this date.
- TfL to invest in designing and promoting use of lorries that do not have blind spots around the cab. Stickers are, literally, a sticking-plaster solution. The long-term solution includes designing out the source of the danger by engineering lorries to reduce or eliminate the possibility of cyclists and pedestrians being crushed in collisions with them, engineering the highway to reduce potential conflict, eliminating lorry driver “blind spots”, and by training drivers to check their mirrors properly when turning or changing lane.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Dunnoeither 6 min 53 sec ago
There’s one other big reason we’re not going to fly to launches from now on: the world IS in the middle of a man-made climate emergency so taking...
- ktache 16 min 10 sec ago
Surely some nice bright colours, some stripes, it is the seaside. Like beach huts...
- Jimnm 49 min 58 sec ago
Perhaps they need to reduce prices dramatically and try to rely on turnover to make a profit. Bikes are more expensive than some motor vehicles...
- MichaelWinnerRIP 53 min 5 sec ago
Italian tourist and pussycat in Portugal.
- Backladder 1 hour 8 min ago
Am I the only one who thinks the brake levers look awful too?
- David9694 1 hour 40 min ago
Yep, it's official - reds under the, er, bonnet...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 19 min ago
Indeed, I was drawing from personal experience – I don't use it that often but it's such a nice bit of infrastructure that I sometimes go out of my...
- paulgardener@gmail.com 2 hours 24 min ago
Except socialism doesn't work like that in real life. It's the capitals countries that try to look after those in need, and the average person's...
- KDee 3 hours 21 min ago
It's the mass that's the issue. Two people on a petrol powered scooter can really mess up a cyclist. Also the fact so many of the petrol scooters...
- andystow 3 hours 48 min ago
The new RH tubes claim to solve that issue, but price and availability is a problem. I tried to get some to try out, but they went out of stock on...
Add new comment
91 comments
Ok let's not mix up our terms here. Riding safely equates with riding assertively. Assertively means being visible, decisive and communicative. Riding out in the road either primary or secondary. outside the door zones. Holding your position. Holding your lane if you take it. Planning and beginning manouevers early. Making sure that if possible the look over your shoulder is a complete look. That you are seen to be looking as well as actually looking. If possible making eye contact with the driver of the vehicle behind. Then
big gestures to create visible signals that mean "I am going in that space". I am not asking your permission. I am telling you what I am doing. ie every one can see you and knows exactly what you are going to do next. It doesn't stop the areseholes getting a cob on but anyone running you down is definitely doing it on purpose not because they didn't see you.
I see a lot of timid riders and when I am driving they are the worry. I see them because I am tuned in to looking out for cyclists. Otherwise you might miss them. But they're the ones probably not where they should be because they don't want to get in the lane to turn right too early. Limp hand signals followed by indecisive move across lane on the basis of "if you'll let me" and probably way too late in the day to have any control over their own space.
This second style is not safer. It is less safe.
Please don't equate assertiveness with aggression or bad manners. It is totally the opposite. Being assertive is taking your rightful place on the road with confidence and skill and using space, time, position and communication to influence other road users. I am also an advanced driver. The IAM base their test and training on the police driving and motorcycling manual/philosophy called "Roadcraft". For a cycling specific version based on the same Roadcraft philosophy try John Franklin - "How to be a better cyclist".
"The aim is to highlight a cyclist’s right to ‘claim their lane’ and, where safe and appropriate, to assert themselves [by] pushing out further into the lane and making themselves visible to drivers," said Pickering. “Mastering a more assertive and informed style of cycling is definitely something we believe keeps cyclists and motorists safer on our roads.”
Buy it, read it.
The ctc forum is over there >>>>>
They could try stickers on the inside of windscreens something along the lines of
"Drivers, it's actually the law that you use your indicators...you know that stick on the left of your steering wheel, it goes DOWN for left..try using it...not all road users can read your mind!"
I've no problem with this on big trucks. You need to take some responsibility for your own safety, and even assuming an ideal, attentive truck driver it's just not a good idea to go up the inside of big vehicles like that. I don't see anything wrong with reminding people, since a lot of cyclists don't seem to have figured it out yet.
No need for taxis and vans though.
I didn't. I meant aggressive riders. Thanks.
Let's not get offended over a sticker. The sticker doesn't change the law or rules of the road or drivers responsibilities. It's obvious who these are aimed at - people who might unwittingly put themselves in a Lorry's blind spot.
And no, that doesn't mean it's a solution for poor infrastructure, design, driving standards or lorry safety. This all still needs to be improved and addressed.
Oozaveard, great posts, as usual.
Looking at these a completely different way.
Are these stickers the new "Baby/Princess/Tw*t on board"? I.e. dickhead warning, in which case bring them on. At least we have half a chance of backing off and away from dangerous driving. Can not really complain as I have a "Bloody Cyclist" jersey. Wonder if I can get away with "Fing Back Off !" on a jersey
On a slightly different topic, way do some cyclist feel the need to move up traffic queues in places were there isn't a cycle lane? We are all road users and abide by the highway code aren't we?
Yes, there is a problem with the roads, and there, I would say bigger, problem with road users. Roads don't kill people, they may give false guidance, a false sense of security, but in themselves a road very rarely kills someone.
The onus has to be on road users to look out for weaker road users to give space and THINK!
The onus on politicians is to make sure road users are safe from the stupid and the dangerous!
I think that's a very negative take on it. Another way of looking at it is that riding a bicycle is a liberating experience in which you are encouraged to be assertive in the sense that oozaveered mentions. And it is possible to adopt new behaviours and attitudes based on training and education.
It's a mistake to assume that all women are like that either... my wife for one wouldn't have much time for the idea that she's incapable of riding assertively and has to wait for the non-existent infrastructure.... Speaking of that infrastructure, if it were possible to convince society to change its expenditures and laws so radically that we could get a dutch infrastructure elsewhere, then it ought to be possible to make other changes, such as accepting that a bicycle's rightful place is being driven safely and courteously without harrasment or fear in primary position in a lane.
I wonder whether there could be an unintended (?) consequence of these stickers with respect to liability and damages in event of a collision: could a lawyer for a driver argue for reduced liability and compensation payable if the vehicle had a "stay back" sticker and the cyclist had "ignored it".
i.e. what basis do these stickers have in law?
I have seen a chap with a small transit van who has put one of the "cyclists do not ride up the left of this vehicle" signs on the back door. He seems to think this is a get out of jail card. I must remember to get a "sales men - do not knock on my door or I will will stab you and then set you alight with petrol" sign as apparently the sign makes it OK to kill people who annoy us.
Don't need a sticker to let me know this. My perception of all motorists is that they're d***heads until they give me room or do not tailgate me. I now when negotiating a narrow section or traffic calming measure pull out to 4 drop my right hand and point to my rear wheel and wag my figure if a vehicle is behind. Once clear I drop back to 1and wave the driver behind through. I've found that in most cases I'm then given plenty of room apart from the occasional Beemer/Audi who are incensed that I've delayed them by approximately 2 seconds. It seems to me that I've made the driver aware that I'm aware of their presence and is my own version of Back Off
Fine for high cab vehicles. In fact, a command is preferable.
On anything smaller it is completely inappropriate.
Likewise Giff, when approaching a pinch point I'll shoulder check, move out a bit and hold my right arm out low with the palm facing back to instruct traffic behind that I want them to wait until I'm through.
It is surprisingly effective, and doesn't seem to bother most drivers at all. Some even seem to appreciate it!
Likewise Giff, when approaching a pinch point I'll shoulder check, move out a bit and hold my right arm out low with the palm facing back to instruct traffic behind that I want them to wait until I'm through.
It is surprisingly effective, and doesn't seem to bother most drivers at all. Some even seem to appreciate it!
Waving through anyone is a bad idea, you are opening a whole new can of worms which you do not want to do.
None I would assume. It is yet another pointless band aid to deal with cyclist safety rather than deal with the real issues of infrastructure in cities; charges, and sentencing within the court system. I would never filter down the inside of traffic personally nor would I encourage it. Either sit in the flow of traffic if near the junction or overtake until you need to pull back across. It is up to us to pass on our skills to those who are new to the whole commuting/ urban experience
"The stickers have angered many cyclists who see them as putting responsibility for cycling safety on the victims and potential victims of driver carelessness, and as implying that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicles."
Absolute b*llocks! Cycling safety should lie first and foremost with the cyclist - do everything you can to keep yourself out of danger. If it's safe to do so, ignore the sign, it really is that simple. If you're going to get angered by this, you should probably adjust your perspective on life!
Should have said I'll only wave through once when sure oncoming is clear and I can see no vehicles on side streets. I have in the past blocked drivers from passing me on blind bends and hump backed bridges.
Like Giff and Bikebud...I too use this method of indicating to other road users that there is (either) a bottleneck or an obstacle that I wish to negotiate and to hang back until I'm clear...unfortunately it is only ever recognised and followed in about 20% of the cases I've used it. Likewise someone needs to educate drivers to slow and keep behind the cyclist instead of overtaking and pulling in immediately in front, such as a driveway or junction exit...that is just saying, yeah I did see you there but I REALLY DON'T GIVE A FqCK....
Well i also use the same gesture to indicate drivers should stay back for a second and yes most do get it.
You know a lot of the aggro is that many drivers feel nervous around cyclists. Some aren't quite sure how to deal with you. Their instinct is to get past and not have the problem anymore. Riding assertively let's them know what to do. So yes I look then signal and morve to the primary through pinch points. And I use that back off a bit hand signal as well. So in the same spirit when the road widens I pull back to the secondary and wave them on on with a thank you wave as well. It's polite. I very often gat wave back or a friendly toot or a hazard light flash in recognition. And actually the more all of us do that the more used to it motorists become. They see a pinch point, see you move over and know it's not you trying to annoy them and that as soon as the pinch point is passed they'll be on their way.
There is no can of worms regarding liability. That's a myth. You can wave people through, flash them through you could even get out and personally invite them through. But they are in charge of their vehicle so have to make their own decisions and are liable for them.
I thought “baby on board” stickers always referred to the driver
Sorry but as a cyclist I don't understand what the problem is. It's a simple message to give a little bit of room for the cyclists own safety.
This just seems to be another excuse for cyclists to kick off at car/lorry drivers. The truth is everyone needs to do better, cyclists included.
No it shouldn't.
Yes you should do what you can to be as safe as you can be. But all road users rely to a greater or lesser extent on all the other road users to keep them safe. We all have a duty of care.
Motorists can kill each other and regularly do. The only difference is vulnerability. HGV drivers have more training and a more difficult test and they have a much higher duty of care because of the potential for damage that their vehicle has. And on downwards. The bits of that continuum we talk about on here are when it gets to the relationship between cyclists and motorists. And yes motorists owe cyclists a duty of care. And yes cyclists on say a mixed use path owe pedestrians a duty of care.
Hey, I certainly didn't suggest that all women are like that. Wouldn't dream of saying that. Merely that its a statistical correlation of a sort, for whatever reason (probably social).
I personally think the first change is more possible than the latter, though I grant you both do seem a very long way off. The latter has never happened anywhere, after all and I think goes against human nature (which is to abuse any power advantages you might have over others). Changing physical structures seems more plausible than changing human nature.
Absolutely.
My guess? Black cabs are used heavily by media types and politicians and other influential people (mostly on expense accounts). The sort of folk who decide what the rules should be.
Much like the old Soviet Union had special 'Zil lanes' for party apparatchiks, I reckon.
If a driver has this, or any other of the 'cyclist warning' stickers that abound, on his vehicle, then he is acknowledging that his vehicle is a hazard to other road users. This means it should not be allowed on the road. In the case of an accident involving a vehicle with such a sticker, clearly the driver is aware of the hazard and has not taken account of it. In that case he is guilty of dangerous driving and has no discernible defence.
Look, we have a few LWB vans and have been advised this is mandatory, and once its clear I will be applying them otherwise we will be in all sorts of insurance bother in the event of an accident.
So it's not a case of I'm applying stickers coz I can't be arsed, it's another stupid box ticking excercise from the nanny state.
Pages