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.
Add new comment
91 comments
*laughs*
Yes it should, we are all responsible for our own well being first. Don't just expect everyone else to look out for you because you want to rush up the inside or outside of motorised vehicles. Yet again it's everyone else's fault and never the cyclist who may have put themselves in danger in the first place.
As for the sticker, yet more fuss over bugger all.
No it shouldn't.
Mandated by whom, backed by what law and/or case?
Sounds like your insurance company (I'm guessing) is trying to CYA with whatever they can think of.
This. Absolutely this.
Try making a vehicle Crossrail compliant. Fire extinguishers, spill-kits, spare bulbs, white-noise reversing alarms [Must be able to be disabled in residential areas at night], beacons and more bloody useless stickers and signs than you can shake a stick at. And then you have to send the driver on a one day course.
Luckily this is my employers problem not mine!
Yeah, I misread you or extrapolated wildly from what you said... sorry. Re-reading it's clear you didn't say that.
I really believe there's a fundamentally different attitude at the base of the change that allowed that infrastructure to get built. Here, if you tell people that they're participating in a system of Child Murder you'll be told that you're hysterical and "anti-car". That fundamental attitude was the start of the dutch infrastructure revolution.
I really can't see why sharing the road with other vehicles wouldn't work if the other vehicle drivers would just cop the fuck on.
Nope, absolutely not this.
In a society those with the most power have the most responsibility.
Who said anything about 'rushing up the inside of motorised vehicles'? That wasn't what was said, so why bring that in? What was said was the blanket statement that 'cycling safety lies first and foremost with the cyclist'. It doesn't, because the cyclist isn't the one with the power to create the danger.
Exactly, the bigger the scheme the more useless tat that's required.
Don't forget the 400 page COSHH manual and sundry non conformance pads.
Nope. We live in a society, with laws and moral rules. Therefore one has the right to expect others to take basic care with our safety. If not, then we are in a state of nature and we can forget all pretence of following laws or moral codes. One or the other - which is it then?
The problem of course is you refer to 'cycling safety', which is a bit of a slight-of-hand, as the issue is really 'motoring safety' as that is where the risk comes from.
The safety of cyclists depends largely on the behaviour of motorists, so its just daft to insist the responsibility lies 'first and foremost' with the one who has the least control over it.
With power comes responsibility. Putting the responsibility on the potential victim at all times is a convenient ruse for the powerful, it seems to me. Not something that only comes up in cycling by any means.
And as for 'rush up the inside or outside' - well the latter is usually called 'overtaking' and motorists do it regularly. And the comment of yours I responded to said nothing about 'rushing up the inside' so I don't see why you switch the subject like that. Indeed the problem, I'm now thinking, with the sign being discussed is that it doesn't really mention passing on the inside, it just comes off like a general 'cyclists stay the hell away from me'. 'Cyclists, don't pass on the left' would be fair enough, and I'm sure I've seen vehicles with variations on that very wording.
Those tailgating twits in Audis and BMWs are the same sort of morons as the one in the Mercedes tailgating me on my way back from my brother's today. I was driving a car for once and as it was raining, dark and the visibility wasn't great, I was driving at slightly less than the posted speed limit of 60 and maintaining a safe distance from the big truck in front. But the Mercedes driver wanted to get past and as soon as he could overtake, did so and then cutting in quickly to avoid an oncoming car. He then trailed along in front of me and behind the truck, which he was unable to overtake until the road became a dual carriageway.
The point I'm making is that some people are so impatient as to not understand that a momentary delay means nothing in the scheme of things.
Except that's exactly where the road tells cyclists they should be. Those in charge of the roads need to stop painting cycle lanes and then telling cyclists not to use them.
Build proper cycle infrastructure and the whole problem goes away immediately.
Re black cabs:
I've never seen one of these on a cab.
You're already forbidden unapproved stickers on cabs.
THE LTDA is a drivers' union, not a vehicle operator. There aren't "vehicle operators" in London.
Re stickers: Bored already.
True, some of those road markings seem like traps. I learned the hard way to ignore the cycle lanes that tell you to go right across the mouth of side-roads, when I got the incomplete-overtake-sideswipe treatment as a result of obeying one such.
But still, it seems fair enough for those vehicles where the driver genuinely can't see you there to have a reminder not to go up the left. If only to counteract those misleading road markings. If it spreads to smaller vehicles where the driver ought to be able to use their eyes then it just becomes pre-emptive victim-blaming. (I guess with HGVs you also need to be very wary about going up the right as well.)
I'm not clear what your point is here. Can you link to the part of the highway code that proscribes filtering by cyclists (or motorcyclists)? Thanks.
Because for me part of the point of cycling is to be able to circumvent the massive congestion caused by motorists unnecessarily using those ludicrously unnecessarily large vehicles (which have been getting steadily larger on average over recent decades, incidentally). Granted, sometimes it just can't be done with any safety (or even at all) and its better to dismount and just walk along the pavement to get past.
Does anyone make a "Motorists Stay Back" jersey? If not, why not.
I think you are missing the point. by allowing such a sticker and the way the language is used, the driver can deny all responsibilities even if the driver was completely neglegent or was dangerous.
I've been in Tel Aviv Israel for the past 6 weeks...now here is a place that would scare the bejeebers out of any cyclist...that's not from here
...cyclists from here just get on with it...cycling down 1 way streets contra to traffic, use no lights, cycle on/off footpaths, whatever they fancy when they fancy
..drivers do the same...if there is 2mm in front of you, they will take it...there appears to be zero rules, except blast your horn, flash your lights and be as rude as is humanly possible....but get them off the roads and it's handshakes all day, hugs all round, hearty laughs and a finer more welcoming body of people you'll never meet...
Just stay away from the roads as much as possible...you even see 'serious roadies'...cycling along the hard shoulders of highway/motorways....and I've seen at least a half dozen serious wrecks and their aftermaths, alongside minor shunts..what can you expect when they have 70kph speed limits on main streets...and that appears to be a minimum speed limit for 99% of the car driving populace..
That's why I'll wait the two weeks until I am back in Ireland before getting back on two wheels....
yes, it should but what would you propose AyBee.
By the interpretation of the sticker...if you stay behind a motorised vehicle you would be safe.
Ok, lets see..i go out on my bike, in helmets and arm guards etc...on my two wheeled scaffold frame....following a car in gentle flow of traffic.
Now traffic picks up speed the car behind me is getting impatient...the road is only 1 lane, nothing I can do...how does stay behind the car makes me safe...what can i do to make the situation safe stop short of getting off my bike and hopping on to a bus or train?
now also consider this, i am following a car...vision of the road ahead is impaired...therefore I cannot foresee what is infront of the car ahead. I maintain a good travelling distance. For whatever reason, the car brakes suddenly. I cannot slow down fast enough. now again I have made all the necessary precautions and taken steps to make the situation as safe as possible. but yet, i will be seriously injured in this situation.
I think Aybee you need to realise cyclists are vulnerable road users, therefore more responsibilities lies on those in cars/vans/trucks. To a more interesting extent, I think cyclists are more vulnerable than pedestrians, I have seen a number of accidents where a pedestrain crosses the road blind and t-bones a cyclist. the pedestrian just get knocked back or falls forward and land on the cyclist. where the cyclist often flies off the bike or at least falls heavily with all sorts of cuts and bruises.
I wouldn't wear one. For the same reason I get annoyed if I see them on vehicles. They are almost more of a wind up than a warning. Just like I am pissed off seing them on the back of vans. I don't see how winding up motorists contributes to my safety.
Are the stickers thay much different from horse-ists wearing 'pass wide and slow' on their tops?
Allez Neg... The stickers are different in that one is on the vulnerable road user, one is not.
Though I don't agree with ricky 1980 this is not true. You cannot just write disclaimers on your vehicle and claim you aren't liable. Your liability is decided by statute law not by you.
If it helps this also goes for any other walk of life where you see disclaimers. You know that bit that follows them on many product disclaimers "this does not affect your statutory rights". Well of course it doesn't.
Even dangerous sports. You know those disclaimers that say you are doint it at your own risk. Well they can wave one of those all the way court. You might have signed it in blood. It won't matter if they are negligent in any way. They can write what they like on their vehicles, but Parliament makes the law, not EZ Signs Ltd or the odd van driver.
Cyclists know your place
"Blood is a bugger to clean off rubber."
I assume there is also a "Pedestrians get out of the way" one for the front?
Hang on! Where's my sticker for when im riding my bike? 'Incompetent driver keep back' I keep a fair distance back from motorists as you never now what they will do next! Still I think the stickers they are using are not written appropriately they should read 'incompetent driver behind the wheel for your own safety stay well clear' now that makes more sense. ...
Saw such a sticker on a tiny Datsun pickup recently. Basically no longer or wider than an estate car. Some motorists find the signs appealing as it gives them the feeling they are asserting authority. I'd like a gilet with Slow Down Moron written on the back but I can't see it helping the situation either.
I find these particular stickers to be so arrogant. Yesterday I saw a cement truck with a sticker that said something along the lines of, Cyclists, beware of passing this vehicle on the left That's great. It offers a warning to those of us on bikes who need a reminder without suggesting we are all idiot nuisances who ought not be on the roads. My natural reaction to reading, "Cyclists stay back," is to reply, f*ck off.
Ps. Why no colon? "Cyclists stay back" is an ascertion of fact. "Cyclists: stay back!" however, is a warning/instruction aimed at cyclists.
Quite tempted to get a bunch of stickers made up to stick on underneath them. Some wording like "In fact everyone stay back as I am a terrible driver". Should be easy to slap these one when the vehicles are stationary in traffic.
Pages