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.
91 thoughts on “Cyclists’ organisations unite against ‘stay back’ stickers”
Maybe this should have a
Maybe this should have a warning for cyclist to watch out for pot holes?
Something like this? forgive
Something like this? forgive my cr*p arty skills
error
error
May as well say
cyclists
May as well say
cyclists stay at home
or
cyclists stay off the roads so I can roll this polluting, cancer causing taxi -hauling fat, lazy fcuks- around London whilst giving my gingster sweaty fueled aris bigoted opinion on everything.
I don’t understand what the
I don’t understand what the sticker means. If I see one I have to “stay back”. Back where? A metre back? Twenty metres back? Back at home?
If I am approaching a stationary vehicle with such a sticker then do I have to leave an extra large gap in front of me? What if another vehicle with such a sticker pulls into that gap, do I have to get off my bike and run away?
They’re a handy warning for
They’re a handy warning for when someone’s desperate to overtake you then turn left in front of you. You’ve got ample milliseconds to read it while you take evasive action.
Think the fall into the same category as “baby on board” signs. What on earth are they actually for?
Maggers wrote:Think the fall
They’re to let you know that the person driving is probably distracted by a noisy child in their car – or “driving without due care attention” as it’s often known – and will attempt to use that in their defence after they smear you into the scenery.
I thought “baby on board”
I thought “baby on board” stickers always referred to the driver 🙂
From the Highway
From the Highway code:
Turning left
182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
183
When turning
keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.
not sure on this, having seen
not sure on this, having seen some cyclists behaviour, maybe having a sticker, “don’t be so f***ing stupid as to try and squeeze down the side of a tractor trailer” makes sense!
Yes the driver should be looking, but that doesn’t mean cyclists can do what they like and expect to get away with it. Comes back to why are more women killed then men on london’s roads. Education matters!
mrmo wrote:not sure on this,
I agree on the first part, the amount of cyclists that shouted abuse at me for stopping *behind* large vehicles rather than squeezing up the middle of them (and subsequently blocking them from being idiots too) was beyond belief.
Funnily enough most of those idiots were men. Education DOES matter. As does eloquence and logic.
I’m not sure where you’re basing your facts on the the stats between male and female cyclists being killed on Londons roads but unless the media is witholding information it seems as if you’re wrong. Between now and July last year male deaths on Londons roads were almost 50% higher than female. Going off the stats on ctc’s sites, it looks like there was around 9 men and 4 women killed in London.
Bit of a harsh statement on a very sensitive subject, tbh.
mooleur wrote:. Between now
Now revise those numbers to reflect the percentage cyclists who are male and who are female.
That is what I meant, there is something very odd when the numbers are as out of kilter as they are.
I know it is a sensitive topic, and I am not trying to be insensitive on this.
quick google brings this back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
mrmo wrote:mooleur wrote:.
Now revise those numbers to reflect the percentage cyclists who are male and who are female.
That is what I meant, there is something very odd when the numbers are as out of kilter as they are.
I know it is a sensitive topic, and I am not trying to be insensitive on this.
quick google brings this back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm— mooleur
That’s fair enough, although it’s a harsh reality that whilst women do tend to cycle more “safely” they bear the brunt of being the more damaged demographic. I’m not sure it’s necessarily an ‘education’ issue but more a set of failures in the likes of infrastructure and even driver education around them. I don’t think women should be made to feel like they’re at risk for cycling safely, and I don’t think men should take the standpoint of being more superior on the roads simply because their trend towards aggressive riding benefits them.
I have to question this as the Dutch ride to these rules yet encounter much fewer problems.
mooleur wrote:mrmo
Now revise those numbers to reflect the percentage cyclists who are male and who are female.
That is what I meant, there is something very odd when the numbers are as out of kilter as they are.
I know it is a sensitive topic, and I am not trying to be insensitive on this.
quick google brings this back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm— mrmo
That’s fair enough, although it’s a harsh reality that whilst women do tend to cycle more “safely” they bear the brunt of being the more damaged demographic.— mooleur
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.
oozaveared wrote:
Please
I didn’t. I meant aggressive riders. Thanks.
Saw one of those on the back
Saw one of those on the back of a British Transport Police vehicle the other day.
In Guildford
On a Ford Ka, covered most of the boot 8|
Might as well say “Stay
Might as well say “Stay Back – Careless Driver that doesn’t use their mirrors”.
In fact I wonder whether putting them on is, in fact, a tacit admission of reduced competence by a driver. I’d be inclined to argue in any collision that such a sticker is an indication by a driver that they do not intend to be considerate to cyclists. Ipso facto are accepting that their own driving standards are low.
Another example of people making up their own highway code.
Drivers seem to think that it
Drivers seem to think that it is a license for cutting you off. They are now more and more common, particularly in small vans. If DfT and TFL don’t change the way that drivers behave, the “ownership of the road” road tax, etc. argument will not disappear. All vehicles need to be liable for their actions and bicycles need to be treated as rightful road users, not 2nd class.
If stickers are the answer
If stickers are the answer can I get a sticker for my back that says: “MOTORISTS – STAY BACK” ?
Font size 8 would be fine – they are usually near enough to read this no bother.
I can just about tolerate
I can just about tolerate them on HGVs. According to some on here, some cyclists do still cycle up the left of them, so maybe, incredibly, some just aren’t aware of the issue. (Edit – though point 4 of the article is a better way).
Putting them on taxis, vans or similar is just rude and would add to my sense that certain drivers have a pathological sense of entitlement. (If its spreading, I wonder if its just become a way to express a general hostility to cyclists, and to warn you they are going to blame you if they hit you?)
For cyclists I’d go with “motorists – follow the highway code when overtaking” except that probably wouldn’t fit in a readable font.
This is utterly ridiculous.
This is utterly ridiculous. Get off your high horse and ride your bike without moaning about everything.
Bad road use goes BOTH WAYS – ALWAYS.
alexholt3 wrote:This is
Nah, it really doesn’t.
Should we get a sense of
Should we get a sense of perspective and see this as being aimed at new, inexperienced cyclists who might be tempted to undertake a lorry? Wait until the summer when, as I call them, the ‘occasional cyclists’ take to the road; you see some pretty scary manoeuvres and they’re completely oblivious to the danger they’re in. I always thought undertaking was a complete ‘no no’ unless it’s a stationary queue and you can safely jump a few spaces, but at your own risk.
Big deal over a sign, it is
Big deal over a sign, it is obvious what it means but the new ones do look good.
mrmo wrote:mooleur wrote:.
Now revise those numbers to reflect the percentage cyclists who are male and who are female.
That is what I meant, there is something very odd when the numbers are as out of kilter as they are.
I know it is a sensitive topic, and I am not trying to be insensitive on this.
quick google brings this back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm— mooleur
Got to say, your original statement read a bit as though you were saying female cyclists were less educated than male cyclists.
I’ve always suspected that social conditioning of women to take less assertive positions is a big part of it. Riding behind people as they come to intersections is interesting. Women usually drift in towards the opening instead of continuing in a straight-line. Possibly part of the “be nice and co-operative” conditioning that is placed on women from a very young age.
Ush wrote:
Got to say, your
Yes I was a bit harsh, and education might not be quite the right word, but training to be assertive? There is something to be said for not being co-operative in traffic. I am not saying being a c**k, just holding your line, not ceding for cars and trucks etc. Accepting that you will annoy some drivers, but at least you are alive.
mrmo wrote:
Yes I was a bit
Maybe, if its the case that half the population are statistically less likely to have the character traits necessary to ride like this, it indicates there is a problem with a system that requires such a riding style?
FluffyKittenofTindalos
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!
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Maybe, if its the case that half the population are statistically less likely to have the character traits necessary to ride like this, it indicates there is a problem with a system that requires such a riding style?— mrmo
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.
Ush wrote:
It’s a mistake to
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.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
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.
The Dutch encounter less
The Dutch encounter less problems as over there drivers that kill are guilty until proven Innocent. Over here the burden of proof lies with the cyclist – who is most often now dead and does not get to to stand in court and give evidence against the person who ran them down.
The sticker should have a
The sticker should have a Panda on it
Ridiculous on smaller
Ridiculous on smaller vehicles, but got to agree with those saying it should stay on lorries. So many people just either don’t know or don’t care. Given some of the near misses I’ve seen I often stop behind lorries at an upcoming junction in such a way as to block anyone coming past on the inside. Yes it might be a bit abrupt, but if it saves lives surely it’s worth it. At the end of the day, not being your fault is little compensation if you do get hit ….
MattT53 wrote:Yes it might be
On reflection though, its not only ‘abrupt’ (to the point of hostile) but its not actually very clear or specific enough. The suggested image in the article seems much more to-the-point.
If last night’s dreadful
If last night’s dreadful behaviour on Finchley Road is anything to go by, I really need a sticker on the back of my bike which says:
“Taxi drivers, stay back. If you see me riding in the middle of a bus lane, this is not an invitation for you to try and undertake me at speed and then give me verbal abuse when I change position to prevent you from doing so.”
Does anyone know why taxi drivers are allowed to use bus lanes anyway? Taxis aren’t classed as essential public transport are they?
timfearn wrote:
Does anyone
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.
Are there any more bandwagons
Are there any more bandwagons for them?
The ctc forum is over there
The ctc forum is over there >>>>>
They could try stickers on
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
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.
Let’s not get offended over a
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
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?
Yorkshie Whippet
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
giff77 wrote:Yorkshie Whippet
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— Yorkshie Whippet
Waving through anyone is a bad idea, you are opening a whole new can of worms which you do not want to do.
northstar wrote:giff77
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— giff77
Waving through anyone is a bad idea, you are opening a whole new can of worms which you do not want to do.— Yorkshie Whippet
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.
northstar wrote:giff77
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— giff77
Waving through anyone is a bad idea, you are opening a whole new can of worms which you do not want to do.— Yorkshie Whippet
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.
giff77 wrote:Yorkshie Whippet
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— Yorkshie Whippet
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.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
On a
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.
I wonder whether there could
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?
Pauldmorgan wrote:I wonder
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
I have seen a chap with a
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.
Fine for high cab vehicles.
Fine for high cab vehicles. In fact, a command is preferable.
On anything smaller it is completely inappropriate.
Likewise Giff, when
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
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!
“The stickers have angered
“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!
AyBee wrote:
Absolute
No it shouldn’t.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
No it shouldn’t.— AyBee
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.
Shep73
No it shouldn’t.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
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.— AyBee
This. Absolutely this.
TheSpaniard wrote:Shep73
No it shouldn’t.— Shep73
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.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
This. Absolutely this.— AyBee
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.
Shep73
No it shouldn’t.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
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.— AyBee
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.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
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.
teaboy
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.)
FluffyKittenofTindalos
No it shouldn’t.— AyBee
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.
AyBee wrote:”The stickers
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.
oozaveared wrote:AyBee
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.— AyBee
Absolutely.
AyBee wrote:Absolute
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.
ricky1980 wrote:AyBee
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.
Like Giff and Bikebud…I too
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….
Sorry but as a cyclist I
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.
If a driver has this, or any
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
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.
Flying Scot wrote:Look, we
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.
*laughs*
*laughs*
No it shouldn’t.
No it shouldn’t.
Try making a vehicle
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. ~X(
Luckily this is my employers problem not mine!
levermonkey wrote:Try making
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.
Re black cabs:
I’ve never
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.
Does anyone make a “Motorists
Does anyone make a “Motorists Stay Back” jersey? If not, why not.
amawby wrote:Does anyone make
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.
I’ve been in Tel Aviv Israel
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….
Are the stickers thay much
Are the stickers thay much different from horse-ists wearing ‘pass wide and slow’ on their tops?
allez neg wrote:Are the
Oh now I get it, they mean pass leaving a big gap and slowly, not pass because I’m wide and slow…
Allez Neg… The stickers are
Allez Neg… The stickers are different in that one is on the vulnerable road user, one is not.
Cyclists know your place
Cyclists know your place
“Blood is a bugger to clean
“Blood is a bugger to clean off rubber.”
I assume there is also a
I assume there is also a “Pedestrians get out of the way” one for the front?
Hang on! Where’s my sticker
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
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
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
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.