National Express wants your help picking warning sticker

Coach operator wants to let cyclists know about vehicle blind spots

by John Stevenson   May 9, 2014  

stickers

National Express coaches wants you to vote on which of two warning stickers it should adopt to let cyclists know its vehicles restrict its drivers view of the road so that they pose a hazard to vulnerable road users.

The two sticker designs were developed by National Express and a focus group of cyclists and experts at sustainable transport charity Sustrans, which is hosting the vote.

The appeal for help picking a design comes after a York cyclist published a compilation of careless and irresponsible driver behaviour including an overtake by a National Express coach that clearly failed to meet the Highway Code recommendation to “give … cyclists … at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.

Sustrans’ expertise is in building off-highway shared-use active travel facilities, so it’s perhaps not surprising that this exercise doesn't seem to have landed on the idea that making coaches less hazardous might be better than slapping on a few stickers.

The group came up with two designs: an arrow style sticker warning cyclists about passing on the left-hand side; and one that includes a large eye, focusing riders’ attention on the coach driver’s blind spot.

To be fair to National Express and Sustrans, the stickers do at least warn of the specific problem, vehicle blind spots. That will be seen as an improvement on the ‘Cyclists Stay Back’ stickers issued by Transport for London that have appeared on even small vans as well as trucks in the capital.

Representatives of cycling campaign groups, including CTC, London Cycling Campaign and Road Danger Reduction Forum, wrote to Transport for London in February saying: “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.”

One of the campaigners’ concerns was that the sticker “conveys no useful information to cyclists,” said in a follow-up letter to Leon Daniels of TfL, adding: “We have suggested that wording should specifically draw attention to the risk from left-turning HGVs.”

According to collision-avoidance system manufacturer EyeDrive, National Express has trialled its Collision Prevention System and more than halved the number of near-misses recorded by its vehicles.

To pick your favourite, go to Sustrans.

48 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

Howsabout:

"Cyclists!

We don't want you on the roads and we sure as hell don't want you on our frigging paths either. Just piss off, now, OK?

Lots of Love,

Sustrans.

PS, We've got a new fundraising campaign coming up, would it be possible for all you cyclists to chip in a few quid for it? Or buy some of the over priced tat from our online shop to help us financially? Cheers, ta."

posted by farrell [1401 posts]
9th May 2014 - 13:32

like this
Like (23)

LinusLarrabee wrote:
You can tell these were designed by or as a result of a committee and focus group. And why do they need the Sustrans logo on them? All it needed was a simple bike icon with the following text below it:

BEWARE!
Driver
Blind
Spots

Everything else is superfluous waffle and branding. The word "Driver" could also be removed from my example to make it more concise.

1 What's wrong with groups designing things. Getting in other opinions and views and discussing them.

2 Focus groups have a bad name through political associations but they are used every day in advertising because they work. They are the antidote to the dreaded "groupthink". ie Young creative types living in London and working at ad agencies may tend to share a common outlook that they think is obvious but isn't to everyone. ipso facto their designs are tested in focus groups ie a mixed group of people being asked what they think. This is thenfed back into the design.

3 Even military plans are trialled by what we called Red Team in the same manner.

Floating this in front of us cyclists on this and other sites is part of that.

I am glad you have your own wording. Can you explain how you would gauge its effectiveness and acceptability prior to spending a shed load of money on producing the leaflets only to find out that they annoyed people or were unclear, not noticed, too small, the wrong colour, too unfriendly, not serious enough....?

Might you not show them to someone else and see what they thought? No?

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [569 posts]
9th May 2014 - 13:32

like this
Like (12)

oozaveared wrote:
teaboy wrote:
How about one in the cab - "don't drive in a manner that is likely to cause fear or harm to others"?

The trouble with the "if you can't see my mirrors" one is that it's perfectly possible to see the vehicle's mirrors from absolutely everywhere on the left-hand side of the vehicle. Just because the mirrors can be seen from outside the vehicle it doesn't mean the driver can see you in them.

What?

The warning is to vehicles behind.

If you can't see the lorry's mirrors then you are in a blind spot. The driver can't possibly see you. That's all. Simple advice.
There may well be other blind spots but just because you can't have a great long explanation about all of the possibilities doesn't mean you shouldn't warn/remind people of the principal one.

Red triangle warining signs exist that say "oncoming traffic in the middle of the road".

I bet you object to that because there may actually be no oncoming traffic at that precise moment. And that they have neglected to put up a sign somewhere else that someone could be oncoming in the middle of the road but for no good reason.

Wow. Did you get out the wrong side of bed this morning?!

All I said is the "If you can't see my mirrors I can't see you" sign implies that if you can see the mirrors the driver should be able to see you, which they can't necessarily do. This could lead people to believe they are in a safe position (they can see the mirrors) when they aren't.

Eliminate the blind spots as much as possible and engineer the roads and junctions to reduce the harm caused by large vehicles.

posted by teaboy [150 posts]
9th May 2014 - 13:36

like this
Like (14)

farrell wrote:
Howsabout:

"Cyclists!

We don't want you on the roads and we sure as hell don't want you on our frigging paths either. Just piss off, now, OK?

Lots of Love,

Sustrans.

PS, We've got a new fundraising campaign coming up, would it be possible for all you cyclists to chip in a few quid for it? Or buy some of the over priced tat from our online shop to help us financially? Cheers, ta."

Every time I come to threads like this, you've always already said something along the lines of what I was going to post!

zanf's picture

posted by zanf [480 posts]
9th May 2014 - 13:40

like this
Like (18)

Jonathing wrote:
How about we take vehicles off the road which have blind spots big enough to need stickers for? I'm always meet with stoney silence when, at those sit-cyclists-in-a-cab events, I ask why something with that little visibility is allowed on the road in the first place.

Dangerous idea.

Cos maybe the flip side will be that it would be easier, less expensive to keep the cyclists away from the lorries and ban us instead.

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

And if you want to make the govt or councils make an either/or choice between placating a few hot headed cyclists that don't like a sticker on a bus, and taking on the RHA. What do you think the outcome would be?

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [569 posts]
9th May 2014 - 13:40

like this
Like (20)

oozaveared wrote:
1 What's wrong with... [the rest of the babble cut short]

This is not an advertising / marketing campaign. These are not leaflets or posters a person will take away and read at their leisure. This is a functional sign that will be stuck to the back of a moving vehicle and be seen by moving cyclists. There's a reason road signs don't have paragraphs of text on them - hopefully I don't need to explain to you why.

posted by LinusLarrabee [36 posts]
9th May 2014 - 13:54

like this
Like (15)

I vandalised a "Cyclists Stay Back" sticker on a lorry about 35 minutes ago. Fnarr.

Really, though?

posted by workhard [378 posts]
9th May 2014 - 13:55

like this
Like (13)

"Warning: This badly designed bus and under-trained driver will kill you and then blame you for it"

posted by severs1966 [76 posts]
9th May 2014 - 14:12

like this
Like (20)

oozaveared wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:
SteppenHerring wrote:
I have been very tempted to get some black on yellow stickers made up that say "Crap Driver" in order to be able to slap these on vehicles right underneath the "Cyclists Stay Back" stickers.

I've had the same thought - 'crap driver onboard' would do the trick nicely

That's probably unfair. That some companies are aware of a problem and want to do something about it, however cackhandedly, probably means their drivers are the better ones and are also aware and more careful.

The ones you should really worry about are the ones that are less aware and even if they were aware wouldn't even bother to try to warn people with any kind of sticker because it will cost them a a few quid, they can't be bothered and it their lookout anyway.

Let's not make perfect the enemy of the good shall we?

It probably is unfair and yep, I know some bus and haulage companies are doing a bit to try and alleviate the problem. But plenty aren't.

It was a National Express coach in the video clip from York doing a close pass remember. While the company management may be trying to reduce the firm's insurance premiums, there is at least one driver out there who the message hasn't filtered down to.

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [2188 posts]
9th May 2014 - 14:22

like this
Like (8)

LinusLarrabee wrote:
oozaveared wrote:
1 What's wrong with... [the rest of the babble cut short]

This is not an advertising / marketing campaign. These are not leaflets or posters a person will take away and read at their leisure. This is a functional sign that will be stuck to the back of a moving vehicle and be seen by moving cyclists. There's a reason road signs don't have paragraphs of text on them - hopefully I don't need to explain to you why.

It's a design isssue for a piece of communication. Much like advertising.
http://designmuseum.org/design/jock-kinneir-margaret-calvert

Audience
Opportunity to view
Message

Short enough?

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [569 posts]
9th May 2014 - 15:00

like this
Like (19)

OldRidgeback wrote:
oozaveared wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:
SteppenHerring wrote:
I have been very tempted to get some black on yellow stickers made up that say "Crap Driver" in order to be able to slap these on vehicles right underneath the "Cyclists Stay Back" stickers.

I've had the same thought - 'crap driver onboard' would do the trick nicely

That's probably unfair. That some companies are aware of a problem and want to do something about it, however cackhandedly, probably means their drivers are the better ones and are also aware and more careful.

The ones you should really worry about are the ones that are less aware and even if they were aware wouldn't even bother to try to warn people with any kind of sticker because it will cost them a a few quid, they can't be bothered and it their lookout anyway.

Let's not make perfect the enemy of the good shall we?

It probably is unfair and yep, I know some bus and haulage companies are doing a bit to try and alleviate the problem. But plenty aren't.

It was a National Express coach in the video clip from York doing a close pass remember. While the company management may be trying to reduce the firm's insurance premiums, there is at least one driver out there who the message hasn't filtered down to.

Agreed so lets' encourage those that want to (for whatever motivation) do something about the problem. If (as some on here seem to) we attack the ones that are trying then they may well decide that its counterproductive for them to do or say or propose anything because it puts them in the spotlight to be abused. Meanwhile. I M Pikey skip hire up the road comes in for no criticism whatsoever because it couldn't give a monkeys if a cyclist is killed. It'll just fire the driver and get another one and get back to business.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [569 posts]
9th May 2014 - 15:10

like this
Like (15)

Bhachgen wrote:
Aye. The left one is completely stupid and I can't believe anyone at Sustrans could have thought that was suitable. Many people would take an implication of that sign as "please pass on the left". When people who are actually campaigning on behalf of cyclists come up with something like that it's no wonder the crap we get from non-cycling-specialist organisations such as local authorities etc.

Either that or they have decided they want the square-eye one so have presented us with an unacceptable option as well to give us the illusion of choice...

posted by Mr Will [88 posts]
9th May 2014 - 15:24

like this
Like (14)

oozaveared wrote:
LinusLarrabee wrote:
oozaveared wrote:
1 What's wrong with... [the rest of the babble cut short]

This is not an advertising / marketing campaign. These are not leaflets or posters a person will take away and read at their leisure. This is a functional sign that will be stuck to the back of a moving vehicle and be seen by moving cyclists. There's a reason road signs don't have paragraphs of text on them - hopefully I don't need to explain to you why.

It's a design isssue for a piece of communication. Much like advertising.
http://designmuseum.org/design/jock-kinneir-margaret-calvert

Audience
Opportunity to view
Message

Short enough?

Clearly, you're missing the point. Were you one of the folks involved in the design of these signs? You don't have to be embarrassed if you were. There's nothing exceptional about being involved in bad design - it goes on all the time.

posted by LinusLarrabee [36 posts]
9th May 2014 - 15:36

like this
Like (13)

oozaveared wrote:
kie7077 wrote:
F*ck the stickers, eliminate the blind spots and then we'll talk about the stickers.

What are we talking here? See through lorries and cargoes? Light bending forcefields? Using "the force"? What?

from http://www.seemesaveme.com/eliminate/safer_lorries/blind_spots/

Fresnel Lenses. These are low cost plastic lenses that can give the driver a view of an area where they lack a direct line of sight, often used on the passenger window. These are recommended by TfL as part of any good mirror system.

Blind spot cameras. These can be fixed to the side, rear and front of a vehicle, relaying a picture to the driver via a monitor in the cab. These images may be recorded; this can assist in determining responsibility for any incidents.

Like I said, eliminate the blind-spots.

posted by kie7077 [452 posts]
9th May 2014 - 16:01

like this
Like (12)

So to summarize

A spate of mostly inexperienced cyclists are killed by left turning lorries in London

The issue of cyclists being positioned inside and their visibility to drivers of large vehicles starts to gain traction.

A large bus Company suggests a set of stickers warning about the blind spots on vehicles that are on the road and will be on the road for the foreseeable future.

The company involves Sustrans. Puts a couple of ideas forward for consideration and seeks to involve cyclists in their design.

Some cyclists start hurling abuse, Some criticise any such attempt at warning, some want a large chunk of the road haulage and PSV fleet off the road tomorrow.

Sometime I think people would rather rant at the traffic than make any improvement that is seen to accept that it exists.

Things are always imperfect.

Look up the "cult of the Imperfect" and Robert Watson Watt

“Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes.”

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [569 posts]
9th May 2014 - 16:37

like this
Like (22)

Blind Spots????

Last time I looked National Express coaches were non-articulated. A professional driver should be able to set up his mirrors in such a way that there are no blind spots on a non-articulating vehicle. If there are blind spots then someone should be asking the question "Why?" and then doing something about it.

As to the design. Lose the bike, keep the eye and have the text say "Please take care when passing!" This makes it applicable to all road users. Put a bike on it and other road users think it doesn't apply to them.

posted by levermonkey [362 posts]
9th May 2014 - 17:42

like this
Like (15)

Only two? Oh, just when my creative juices have gotten flowing as well.

One at the back, to dissuade undertaking at junctions.

And one for the dashboard. In the style of a post it note.

posted by Argos74 [289 posts]
9th May 2014 - 18:47

like this
Like (21)

@oozaveared

When there are solutions to blind spots that can be added to lorries, those solutions should be added.

I regularly see these stickers on the back on HGVs and they haven't stopped the spate of deaths. The problem being they can't explain HGV turning circles and blind spots easily and quickly to the people who cycle straight past them. They are not a good solution. The solutions are education of both drivers and cyclists, proper cycling infrastructure and blind spot remedies.

posted by kie7077 [452 posts]
9th May 2014 - 18:51

like this
Like (10)

oozaveared wrote:
So to summarize

A spate of mostly inexperienced cyclists are killed by left turning lorries in London

The issue of cyclists being positioned inside and their visibility to drivers of large vehicles starts to gain traction.

A large bus Company suggests a set of stickers warning about the blind spots on vehicles that are on the road and will be on the road for the foreseeable future.

The company involves Sustrans. Puts a couple of ideas forward for consideration and seeks to involve cyclists in their design.

Some cyclists start hurling abuse, Some criticise any such attempt at warning, some want a large chunk of the road haulage and PSV fleet off the road tomorrow.

Sometime I think people would rather rant at the traffic than make any improvement that is seen to accept that it exists.

Things are always imperfect.

Look up the "cult of the Imperfect" and Robert Watson Watt

“Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes.”

I understand some of your frustration and, personally, I don't go in for all this them (drivers) vs us mentality - it's just not helpful. Signage is not the only or best solution, but if it can help it's worth adopting - IMHO. However, again IMHO, these signs are poorly designed and when you see the Sustrans logo on them you have to wonder what the priorities are here. As a designer with 20+ years of experience I'm questioning how people are going read all that text on these signs (or work out what that clever eye logo is all about) whilst simultaneously avoiding potholes and all the other hazards they have to look out.

posted by LinusLarrabee [36 posts]
9th May 2014 - 19:57

like this
Like (11)

Just an update on the letter about the "Cyclists stay back" stickers sent to Transport for London from CTC, LCC, RoadPeace, TABS (The Association of Bikeability Schemes) and RDRF (Road Danger Reduction Forum) in February, which you mention in the article.

We received a reply from TfL which we thought inadequate and responded accordingly: you can see the correspondence here http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/04/30/inadequate-reply-from-tfl-over-cyclists-st... .

Our principal concern was that the stickers - which were intended for a specific type of vehicle (HGV) where there are currently (although hopefully for not too much longer) problems with drivers not being able to see cyclists and pedestrians in various positions close to the vehicle - are being used on other vehicles where they are not appropriate, particularly cars and vans, which don't have this problem. There are also issues about the precise wording and not slackening in engineering out the visibility problem.

If there is an issue with coaches which is similar to that of HGVs, then a sticker - if properly worded - may well be appropriate. However, most of us would suggest that the priorities are (a) there should be no excuse for rule or law breaking driving - which often has nothing to do with visibility issues anyway and (b) if there are difficulties for drivers in seeing , these need to be remedied by installation of the right kind of technology, whether sensors or mirrors.

I hope this clarifies things.

Dr Robert Davis, Chair RDRF

posted by ChairRDRF [120 posts]
9th May 2014 - 20:54

like this
Like (14)

This article comes after the York video, so pushing it out now strikes me as a piece of PR timing? I don't doubt the development of the sticker idea happened before the NE coach was filmed passing dangerously close in York, however it seems strange and a little patronising that the sticker choice is suddenly on offer.

The coach pass is surely nothing to do with blind spots as the coach is clearly overtaking, so the driver must have seen the cyclist in order to perform the overtake. Coach drivers wouldn't pass a lorry like that because they know the risk to back end of their coach. Why should they do that to a cyclist? Because they know the risk isn't to their bus/passengers.

I have to agree with many posts that stickers aren't the answer - responsible driving from professional coach drivers is surely the least NE can reassure cyclists of.

posted by vanmildert [30 posts]
9th May 2014 - 22:18

like this
Like (14)

oozaveared wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:
oozaveared wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:
SteppenHerring wrote:
I have been very tempted to get some black on yellow stickers made up that say "Crap Driver" in order to be able to slap these on vehicles right underneath the "Cyclists Stay Back" stickers.

I've had the same thought - 'crap driver onboard' would do the trick nicely

That's probably unfair. That some companies are aware of a problem and want to do something about it, however cackhandedly, probably means their drivers are the better ones and are also aware and more careful.

The ones you should really worry about are the ones that are less aware and even if they were aware wouldn't even bother to try to warn people with any kind of sticker because it will cost them a a few quid, they can't be bothered and it their lookout anyway.

Let's not make perfect the enemy of the good shall we?

It probably is unfair and yep, I know some bus and haulage companies are doing a bit to try and alleviate the problem. But plenty aren't.

It was a National Express coach in the video clip from York doing a close pass remember. While the company management may be trying to reduce the firm's insurance premiums, there is at least one driver out there who the message hasn't filtered down to.

Agreed so lets' encourage those that want to (for whatever motivation) do something about the problem. If (as some on here seem to) we attack the ones that are trying then they may well decide that its counterproductive for them to do or say or propose anything because it puts them in the spotlight to be abused. Meanwhile. I M Pikey skip hire up the road comes in for no criticism whatsoever because it couldn't give a monkeys if a cyclist is killed. It'll just fire the driver and get another one and get back to business.

I was overtaken by a National Express coach the other day that was travelling well in excess of the posted speed limit when I was riding home from work on my motorbike. As I said, maybe the firm is trying to improve standards but those haven't filtered down to a number of the drivers yet. From what I've seen, the firm's coaches aren't that well driven, something I've noticed over a number of years.

There are a lot of dodgy skip truck and tipper truck companies run by questionable characters and which may or may not be used to launder money it's true. I'm not sure they'll sign up for this anyway.

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [2188 posts]
9th May 2014 - 22:36

like this
Like (16)

Apologies if I suggested that road cc. were not aware of the latest round of correspondence I the article - you were.

Also see CTC's summary here: http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/cycling-and-safety-groups-restate-objections-...

Dr R Davis, Chair, RDRF

posted by ChairRDRF [120 posts]
10th May 2014 - 0:14

like this
Like (9)

A lot of you are missing the point with this, drivers need to look....where they are going.....they should check the inside mirror before moving off or manoeuvring left, but a lot of these accidents have happened because a bike has been ridden into the gap after the vehicle starts its manoeuvre, drivers can't look in 2 directions at once.

Only pass long vehicles when they are stationry and you're certain that you can get in front before they move.

And fleet operators need to fit all possible blind spot eliminating mirrors, not only left and right, but forward and down, to catch bikes too close to see directly. At present such mirrors are still rare, though have been available for over 10 years.

Finally, all vehicle licences should require a 5 yearly test, to protect all road users....some from themselves.

All Campag

posted by Flying Scot [526 posts]
10th May 2014 - 0:27

like this
Like (12)

Flying Scot wrote:

And fleet operators need to fit all possible blind spot eliminating mirrors, not only left and right, but forward and down, to catch bikes too close to see directly. At present such mirrors are still rare, though have been available for over 10 years.

The trouble with that is for every mirror you add you create an additional blind spot.

posted by drfabulous0 [297 posts]
10th May 2014 - 13:49

like this
Like (9)

If the sign is more complex than a standard highway code road sign then it's too complex.

Needs to be something similar to those on Italian trucks - a no entry sign on one side, and a pass this side arrow on the other.

Scuse me while I read this essay on the back of a bus before riding up the cycle lane painted in the gutter on the inside!

--
AndyM

andytherocketeer's picture

posted by andytherocketeer [1 posts]
10th May 2014 - 15:13

like this
Like (7)

Flying Scot wrote:
A lot of you are missing the point with this, drivers need to look....where they are going.....they should check the inside mirror before moving off or manoeuvring left, but a lot of these accidents have happened because a bike has been ridden into the gap after the vehicle starts its manoeuvre, drivers can't look in 2 directions at once.

Only pass long vehicles when they are stationry and you're certain that you can get in front before they move.

And fleet operators need to fit all possible blind spot eliminating mirrors, not only left and right, but forward and down, to catch bikes too close to see directly. At present such mirrors are still rare, though have been available for over 10 years.

Finally, all vehicle licences should require a 5 yearly test, to protect all road users....some from themselves.

+1 and I particularly agree about the refresher for every licence holder every five years. Eye tests should be a compulsory part of this too. I was nearly taken out yesterday on my way home from work as I exited a roundabout. A driver in a Land Rover was about to pull out and T-bone me, stopping just at the last minute. He wasn't on a phone or eating, he simply didn't see me I think, which is hard to fathom as I was on the Suzuki (rather than my MTB or BMXs) and it's a large motorbike with the headlight on all the time. I saw the surprise in his face as he registered (late) my presence and stopped abruptly.

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [2188 posts]
10th May 2014 - 16:39

like this
Like (8)

Just a quick trawl turns up a stack of video clips which suggest that in is not cyclists who ride up the inside and place themselves at risk but coach drivers who drive alongside and pull in. In this video the same A6 National Express service to Stansted does this 3 times between Aldgate and Stratford.

Can I suggest that we get Road CC to deliver a balanced piece and feature the extent to which coach drivers create the danger rather than cyclists place themselves at the nearside. It would be interesting to see just how many CCTV images of cyclists doing dangerous moves are set against coach drivers doing similar.

47 years of breaking bikes and still they offer me a 10 year frame warranty!

A V Lowe's picture

posted by A V Lowe [481 posts]
12th May 2014 - 16:07

like this
Like (5)

farrell wrote:
Howsabout:

"Cyclists!

We don't want you on the roads and we sure as hell don't want you on our frigging paths either. Just piss off, now, OK?

Lots of Love,

Sustrans.

PS, We've got a new fundraising campaign coming up, would it be possible for all you cyclists to chip in a few quid for it? Or buy some of the over priced tat from our online shop to help us financially? Cheers, ta."

Ha HA well said! The attitude of the Sustrans maintenance workers on the Connahs Quay - Chester path is despicable. On three occasions one whose name I believe is Mark, has swung a shovel at me simply for asking him to park his van (should a van be on a dedicated cycle path?) a little more considerately. The office staff really do not give a damn either they just keep passing you around when their is a complaint. I never donate to them.

tired old fart

posted by tired old fart [82 posts]
12th May 2014 - 16:58

like this
Like (9)

A V Lowe wrote:
Just a quick trawl turns up a stack of video clips which suggest that in is not cyclists who ride up the inside and place themselves at risk but coach drivers who drive alongside and pull in.

In the absence of any definitive information I remain open-minded about this. Though people do keep making the claim about cyclists cycling up the left, without ever providing any solid evidence as to how often its that way round vs the above situation.

Personally, coaches are my least-favourite vehicles. They are bloody _huge_ and I would be surprised if the drivers can see anything at all around them. The drivers also seem very aware that they are the biggest thing on the road and many seem to drive with a corresponding degree of overconfidence. I actually find them scarier (and more numerous) than HGVs (and they tend to go a lot faster than buses).

Maybe there's a valid reason for the presence of every last one of them, but if there was one vehicle type I'd want to see restricted in central or inner London it would be them.

(edit - I would presume NEx coaches tend to stick to certain inter-city routes along major roads - whereas the ones I find particularly objectionable are the ones that try and negotiate small congested West End roads and the like)

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [663 posts]
12th May 2014 - 17:53

like this
Like (4)