Signs on the back of Sainsbury’s supermarket chain trucks have been accused of “increasing general fear of cycling” by Radio Two DJ and daily London cyclist, Jeremy Vine, as well as a number of other Twitter users.
The words “Alert today… alive tomorrow” found their way into a number of critical tweets on Thursday following Mr Vine’s original tweet which offered his own take on the meaning of the phrase.
He wrote: “Translation, ‘If I kill you it’s not my fault.'”
Translation, “If I kill you it’s not my fault.” Great way of increasing general fear of cycling @sainsburys pic.twitter.com/AZOMUOIEVm
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) June 9, 2016
The signs, which have been in use on Sainsbury’s trucks since 2014, bear a striking resemblance to the much maligned 2014 Transport for London “cyclists stay back” stickers which the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) called offensive.
Those signs were successfully repealed, and replaced by a non-cycling specific sticker warning other road users of the dangers of truck blind spots following widespread and vocal criticism from cyclists all over the country.
At the time a spokesman for the LCC said “The ‘Stay Back’ message is seen as a prohibition and has been interpreted by drivers as telling cyclists to get out of their way, with the implication that if a collision occurs then it’s the cyclist’s fault for not having done so.”
While the Sainsbury’s sign isn’t quite as directive, according to Mr Vine there remains a “suggestion that cyclists are unsafe only because of their own bad habits.”
Mr Vine offered up that line in the midst of an ‘apology tweet’ to Sainsbury’s for criticising their message to cyclists.
His full apology read:
“Every morning I cycle into work in London in a law-abiding way.
“I am safety-obsessed: mirrors, cameras, a helmet, bright lights even in summer. Every morning, without exception, some arrogant klutz in a vehicle endangers my safety or my life.
“Buses had signs saying CYCLISTS STAY BACK – when bus drivers constantly overtake cyclists and then immediately pull in, which is a mirror image of the very manoeuvre they tell cyclists not to do.
“So Sainsburys – sorry I reacted badly to your warning sign. It’s just that I am
- sick of the danger, and
- sick of the suggestion that cyclists are unsafe only because of their own bad habits.”
Mr Vine wasn’t alone in his views on the matter. Road safety campaigner at Cycling UK, Duncan Dollimore, told iNews that “warning cyclists that they might be in or approaching a lorry driver’s blind spot is sensible, but it should be only a single part of a safe systems approach by any responsible company using large vehicles.
“Sainsbury’s message of ‘Alert today, alive tomorrow’ is just as applicable to their drivers’ behaviour around cyclists and walkers, and in this context it is unnecessary and tantamount to victim blaming.”
Meanwhile a Sainsbury’s spokesperson said: “We launched this lorry two years ago with the sole purpose of keeping road users safe. We’ve been leading on this issue and have had positive feedback from the cycling community on our efforts.”
We have our own opinions on the matter that can be most effectively summed up in our own stickers which you can buy here:
– Buy: road.cc Cyclists Stay Awesome stickers
79 thoughts on “Sainsbury’s truck cyclist warning increases “fear of cycling””
I think a big problem is that
I think a big problem is that, in the approach to junctions, cycle lanes leading to Advanced Stop Lines are painted on the left of the road, and cyclists encouraged to use them.
The columnist Bez has already covered this in an article which I can’t find right now, but the issue can be summed up as:
“Cyclists should use the cycle lane!” “Cyclists shouldn’t pass large vehicles on the left!”
There’s a contradiction there.
PennineRider wrote:
What contradiction? Is a cycle lane a magic carpet that once you have joined it you are not allowed to use the brakes?
L.Willo wrote:
No it isn’t, but lots of new cyclists think they have to use the cycle lane so if they see one they use it. And think it must be OK because otherwise why would it have been put there?
brooksby wrote:
Also worth remembering that as originally designed, the only legal way to enter the bike box is via the filter lane. That lead to the interesting position of the Police occasionally making public remarks which (inadvertently) endorsed cyclists breaking the law for their safety, by passing on the outside of traffic to reach the bike box.
You might even call that a contradiction.
Still not sure whether it’s now finally legal, the details are somewhere in this years TSRGD revision.
PennineRider wrote:
I think you’re refering to this article:
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/09/22/cut-the-crap/
Which if a certain member who quoted you out of context would bother to read will see what the contradiction is.
PennineRider wrote:
My problem with that is that statement is that I generally don’t pass large vehicles on the left unless the traffic is stationary or very slow. Everytime I’ve had a near miss with a vehicle, large or small, turning left into/across me, is when they have passed me.
Really, the subtext here is that it would be better if you lot were just not on the roads.
bsknight wrote:
we’ll sit at home then that should solve the problem. Doh !
Bicycles were around before the automobile, in my mind we cyclists should have priority as the statement in the HW code give way to pedestrians at all times.
I saw one of these signs on a
I saw one of these signs on a Sainsburys truck the other day, and thought it seems a bit HUGE. The little yellow stickers were bad enough, but these are ridiculous.
The truck in question was passing me on the approach to some traffic lights, so I didn’t see the sign on the back until it had passed me…l
(I hadn’t even noticed the “stay alert…!” bit)
Quote:
The truck in question is not articulated, I think.
Quote:
Correct translation: ‘If you kill yourself it’s not my fault.'”
Riding up the inside of a large vehicle is suicidal. Anything that helps to get that lifesaving message across is welcomed by me. Well done, Sainsburys.
L.Willo wrote:
Correct translation: ‘If you kill yourself it’s not my fault.'”
Riding up the inside of a large vehicle is suicidal. Anything that helps to get that lifesaving message across is welcomed by me. Well done, Sainsburys.
What about when the large vehicle puts you in its inside, or puts you in its blind spot? If I’m waiting in an ASL and a HGV pulls up behind me then I am placed in his blind spot and there is nothing that I can do about it.
Or would their Willoness prefer that I dismount, doff my cap as the HGV pulls away, then continue safely on my journey?
brooksby]
A left turning one? If there is no way out, dismount asap and get on the pavement. It will add a few seconds to your journey time but no harm done. Next time, make sure you are in primary at junctions to prevent left turning vehicles pulling alongside you.
The driver stopped. I am pretty sure he saw you before stopping, if you were already in the ASL? You were there first, right?
Filtering is not compulsory. You can turn off the cycle lane traction beam by using your brakes as the videographer clearly demonstrates.
http://youtu.be/leW8Mx1GciE
L.Willo]
You know, sometimes lorry drivers forget what’s in front of them in their impatience to complete those essential journeys. And sometimes they just can’t be arsed, because they know their vehicle’s size makes them safe.
L.Willo]
You know, sometimes lorry drivers forget what’s in front of them in their impatience to complete those essential journeys. And sometimes they just can’t be arsed, because they know their vehicle’s size makes them safe.
Brilliant – that’s the one.
Brilliant – that’s the one. Thanks for the link.
We say “Don’t pass large
We say “Don’t pass large vehicles on the nearside! It’s dangerous!”—
[bikeability-nearside]
—and then we paint lanes that put cyclists up the nearsides of large vehicles.
===================================================================
…. and install traction beams that magically haul cyclists up the inside of long vehicles against their will …..
Not on any cycle lane that I have ridden on.
What a stupid article and don’t get me started on bikeunability …
The only drawback of cycle lanes that I can see is that it encourages some people to lose all awareness of what is outside of the lane and ride like headless chickens. There is one and only one benefit of a cycle lane: vehicles are not allowed in it.
Apart from that, ride in them exactly as you would if the lane was not there and NEVER EVER ride up the inside of a large vehicle where there is potential for it to turn left. It is inexcusable.
L.Willo wrote:
So where did you obtain all the training that you’ve boasted about?
L.Willo wrote:
The majority of cycle lanes are not mandatory, and even where they are drivers still drive in them.
vonhelmet wrote:
The majority of cycle lanes are not mandatory, and even where they are drivers still drive in them.— L.Willo
I can’t help but think that one line is Willo finally giving away the fact he doesn’t actually ride a bicycle on the roads. What cyclist has ever thought that all (or even most) cycle lanes don’t allow vehicles in them?
I say b*ll*cks to jeremy vine
I say b*ll*cks to jeremy vine and good work to sainsburys for trying to help. We cant have it both ways, and quite often cyclists are their own worst enemies.
jterrier wrote:
nice one mate, any warning is better than no warning, what does the posh boy Vine know anyway, he probably just cycles for his street cred. With the amount of tax they take from motorists, it should be reinvested in segregated cycle lanes, there are places in the US where this happens. In Britain they paint lines then they end! Randomly, like where’s the cycling lane gone? Fairies must have made it disappear lol
Jimnm wrote:
nice one mate, any warning is better than no warning, what does the posh boy Vine know anyway, he probably just cycles for his street cred. With the amount of tax they take from motorists, it should be reinvested in segregated cycle lanes, there are places in the US where this happens. In Britain they paint lines then they end! Randomly, like where’s the cycling lane gone? Fairies must have made it disappear lol — jterrier
Ad hominem. Love it. Keep up the good work.
If people didn’t do stupid
If people didn’t do stupid things, there would be little need for any of the multitude of signage telling people not to do stupid things.
Don’t drink bleach.
Don’t fly your kite near powerlines.
Don’t walk on thin ice.
Don’t feed the bears.
Don’t make an extra special effort to put yourself into the blind spot of a vehicle that will kill you if the driver makes a mistake or just doesn’t know you are there.
I can understand why Sainsbury’s are worried though. Must play merry hell with their delivery schedules when a vehicle gets held up on account of being involved in a fatal RTC.
Can we do a similar sign on a
Can we do a similar sign on a t-shirt, something like “I’m in the ASZ, stay back in your area you stupid twat” even L.Willo can’t disagree with that can he?
@Brooksby
@Brooksby
Don’t feed the Willo.
🙂
Rich_cb wrote:
this
What I find interesting is
What I find interesting is that Sainsburys claim they are interested in road safety, but still use trucks with a blind spot. If they addressed their own safety issues, they wouldn’t need a sign which upsets some cyclists.
burtthebike wrote:
They don’t. The new Sainsburys trucks (as pictured) have 360 vision via cameras.
bikebot wrote:
Hey, spot on, I like your thinking!
burtthebike wrote:
— burtthebikeQuite right, although the truck has a fixed axle, with mirrors, no blind spots. Their own pr talks of 360 degree visibility.
If lorries need signs warning others to stay alive, I think we maybe do need a Paris-style rush hour lorry ban.
vbvb wrote:
Or more likely ban cyclists. After all, lorries are making essential journeys. Cyclists have alternatives: walk, public transport or drive but all those groceries are not going to get to Sainsburys in a rickshaw ….
Dear Public, would you rather have cyclists on the road during the rush hour or well stocked supermarkets? Vote Now! …..
I dont fancy our chances …
L.Willo wrote:
A quite spectaular level of obtusity. Honestly, round of applause.
And nice use of the “essential” keyword. Very Keith Peat.
Yeah Willo right, following
Yeah Willo right, following the Paris rush hour Lorry ban the supermarkets of Paris are now like Russa is the 1980 No body can find food, the people are up in arms.
Public service announcement:
Public service announcement:
Dealing With Trolls
When confronting a troll, it is very unwise to feed it or engage with it in any way. It only makes them stronger and more annoying.
Make sure you walk away from the confrontation completely ignoring the troll.
If we all follow these rules, then literally thousands of seconds can be saved not having to read ill thought-out drivel.
Stay safe out there everybody.
Apart from anything else, it
Apart from anything else, it obviously isn’t true. The cemeteries are full of people (including, but by no means limited to, cyclists) who were fully alert the previous day.
All it does is throw doubt on every other claim Sainsburys makes!
Yep, L.Willo is not a cyclist
Yep, L.Willo is not a cyclist.
I was a competitive cyclist
I was a competitive cyclist in the 90’s and now I’m a lorry driver.
This whole thing skinks of sensationalism to me. As a lorry driver in London you need super senses to track everything. A lot of cyclists and pedestrians are oblivious to what’s happening and seem to think they’re invincible.
Cyclists need educating and enforcing in London. I don’t know how that’s possible.
How can Sainsburys be wrong for sending a polite message (In my opinion) that may save your life?
weslikestorun wrote:
Maybe because cyclist’s don’t throw themselves under HGVs?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
You are right! I said Rosa Parks. I should have said Emily Davison ……
weslikestorun wrote:
True. I cannot remember which of the many idiots it was, but one of them was talking about a moral victory as he smashed into the tarmac at speed after refusing to give way to an aggressive driver at a roundabout. I just facepalmed and didn’t even bother to reply. Just another muppet on here ready for an early extinction.
Unfortunately, cycle training has been hijacked by anti-motoring activists who are more interested in creating lots of cycling Rosa Parks rather than passing on realistic advice. Hence, the increasingly common phenomenon of idiots riding two abreast in the middle of the lane, uphill in busy traffic, warmed by their own smugness …. and the like.
Only below the line on road.cc. Anywhere else, applause.
L.Willo]True. I cannot
Anecdata is awesome.
So who provided your training?
weslikestorun wrote:
Just curious as to why you haven’t suggested that pedestrians need educating and enforcing, as you list them both as a problem?
If cyclists took to wearing shirts with polite messages for motorists, would that help clarify what a load of old bollocks this is.
weslikestorun wrote:
I would imagine that being a _responsible_ lorry driver in London must be a stressful business (less so for those who drive while disqualified or refuse to wear their glasses even after killing someone, but for anyone who worries about doing the right thing it clearly is a demanding job).
I’d favour separation of modes, and a reduction in unncessary private car trips, leaving more space for both cyclists and delivery vehicles (that, unlike many of those private car drivers, might be making necessary journeys), so they can be better kept apart.
But the whole point about that message is that its NOT ‘polite’, its downright rude, indeed its a kind of threat, and implictly claims that cyclists only die due to their ‘lack of alertness’. Which is simply a lie. Alert cyclists get killed too, most likely in greater numbers than the unalert ones (as the latter are less likely to actually ride on the roads).
Should cyclists wear shirts reading ‘lorry drivers – look where you are going today and you won’t be a killer tomorrow’? OK, it wouldn’t fit on a t-shirt, but never mind.
weslikestorun wrote:
I’m not sure what being “a competitive cyclist in the 90’s” has to do with this apart from making a pretence that you are coming from a “neutral” perspective on this (“Hey, I can see both sides guys”). We are largely talking inner city city commuting here unless I’ve misunderstood the thread. Also, I guess as lorry driving is, I imagine, your bread and butter, you have self-interest in this.
If you find that difficult, then you probably should not be in control of a lorry or, at least, get a lorry that is equipped to help you to drive safely and with due regard to more vulnerable road users.
No, this is self-serving nonsense from them (although they are not unique here). They need to ensure they don’t endanger cyclists lives. Not the other way around. Their vehicles are bigger, heavier, faster & more powerful than any cycle. It is they who need to reign back and drive with care.
/rant
I agree with the sign and the
I agree with the sign and the sentiment. I never ever ride up beside trucks. Why would you do that? You get into the blind spot of the driver’s eyes, they make a right turn and clip you. So why take that chance? I also don’t ride up beside cars while they’re at a red light. This is the easiest way to get hit. I’m not sure why Sainsbury is apologizing. Cyclists are often at fault- it’s a fact.
deborah wrote:
motorists are more often at fault
http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists
I can’t believe there are still people around that right “fact” at the end of there post, brilliant the classic troll move.
deborah wrote:
Has Willo changed their username?
brooksby wrote:
Appears so.
brooksby wrote:
I’m only surprised that “fact” wasn’t written as “FACT”. Pure Daily Heil stuff.
A Sainsbury’s vehicle with
A Sainsbury’s vehicle with that message painted on parks outside this Sainsbury’s branch in this cycle lane about once a week. I leave the cycle lane just like the cyclist in this image has to because of this similar vehicle.
Whiteladies Rd
https://goo.gl/maps/7a1ibnFvt8K2
That’s not a mandatory cycle
That’s not a mandatory cycle lane.
Did I say it was?
Did I say it was?
L.Willo isnocyclist wrote:
Wait, you’re not who I thought you were.
I’m not L.Willo, just thought
I’m not L.Willo, just thought I just would point out that L.Willo is no cyclist.
As for the cycle lane I mention above there is always a vehicle (not always Sainsbury’s) unloading in it, blocking parked cars in, blocking cyclists and moving motor vehicles. The irony of the cycling statement is not lost on me when I go past in my car or on bike.
L.Willo isnocyclist wrote:
Please stop giving that individual the attention he craves.
Willo would appear to have a
Willo would appear to have a number of users names Deborah being his latest. It’s trolling 101.
Housecathst wrote:
Er. No.
You seriously think it is impossible that more than one reader of a cycle mag thinks it is a terrible idea to cycle up the inside of a large vehicle and would like to thank Sainsburys for spending profits to contribute to improved road safety?
Maybe I should go into
Maybe I should go into Sainsbury’s and steal their produce whilst wearing a t shirt that says ‘alert today, profitable tomorrow’. Victim blame them for my theft.
(No subject)
I ride a bike, value approx
I ride a bike, value approx £50, no helmet, no lycra. I not only pull up behind artics, but block the road so no skinny git can get past me. I’m also on Willo’s side. Treating a huge lump of metal with the contempt you guys think it deserves can only end badly.
sidesaddle wrote:
Be careful with that.
Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980
137:-
(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence
kwi wrote:
Be careful with that.
Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980
(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence — sidesaddle
Having been told, obviously I will never ever do it again. Unless I want to.
kwi wrote:
Be careful with that.
Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980
137:-
(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence — sidesaddle
I think we can safely assume the only place he’s ever done this is in his head.
sidesaddle wrote:
So you make your own decisions re safety (no helmet) but prevent other people from making their own (when it is safe to pass).
Rich_cb wrote:
I ride a bike, value approx £50, no helmet, no lycra. I not only pull up behind artics, but block the road so no skinny git can get past me. I’m also on Willo’s side. Treating a huge lump of metal with the contempt you guys think it deserves can only end badly.
— Rich_cb So you make your own decisions re safety (no helmet) but prevent other people from making their own (when it is safe to pass).— sidesaddle
Absolutely. I take the view that riding up the inside of an artic is never safe, indicating or not. When the lights change whatever the truck does will make no difference, and I (and you) have been inconvenienced by one whole truck (sometimes bus) length. I (we) will still be alive even without a helmet. You will be annoyed. That will please me.
sidesaddle wrote:
So if a groups of helmet enthusiasts blocked you from riding without one you would accept that?
Let people make their own decisions. Don’t think you know better than everyone else.
Rich_cb wrote:
I ride a bike, value approx £50, no helmet, no lycra. I not only pull up behind artics, but block the road so no skinny git can get past me. I’m also on Willo’s side. Treating a huge lump of metal with the contempt you guys think it deserves can only end badly.
— Rich_cb So you make your own decisions re safety (no helmet) but prevent other people from making their own (when it is safe to pass).— sidesaddle
I believe in ATGATT first thing to hit the deck is usually your head. I ride a motorbike too!
sidesaddle wrote:
The arsehat making assumptions about arbitrary groups of people, is an assumption making arsehat.
Seriously, is road.cc accidentally running adverts on the Daily Mail or something. I don’t have any contempt for the vehicle, I have lots of contempt for anyone who thinks a really big font is something that will make a difference.
So where have all the non
So where have all the non-cycling dummies been bussed in from?
Willo you gobshite:
Willo you gobshite:
“True. I cannot remember which of the many idiots it was, but one of them was talking about a moral victory as he smashed into the tarmac at speed after refusing to give way to an aggressive driver at a roundabout. I just facepalmed and didn’t even bother to reply. Just another muppet on here ready for an early extinction”.
That was my idiocy, but not quite as you recall.
I said there was an aggressive driver trying to make a pass where there wasn’t room to do so, this driver hit me from behind as I took the correct line around the roundabout. I had applied Willo law:
I was wearing hi viz
I was wearing a helmet
I was not on a cycle path
I was not endangering any other road user
The car was also applying Willo law:
To only care about himself and his passengers
Nobody knows how I got hit when we both followed Willo law?
An an aside, I remeber once you said that you beat women and I think that is a heneous act, you should be imprisoned and buggered within an inch of your life – with a helmet on obviously, I’m not an animal!
And the moral point I made
And the moral point I made was that I wasn’t sure holding the moral high ground helps when you are face down on the tarmac – who knows, maybe if I’d moved over far enough I would simply have picked up a fine for riding on the pavement or endangered a pedestrian who wasn’t wearing a helmet!
alansmurphy wrote:
Ah yes, you were the clown. I remember now.
Though that isn’t how you told this story the first time around was it? The tune has been changed ….
They have these signs on
They have these signs on Birmingham City utility vhicles- my expereince of them suggests an addition worded something like ” – because my driver can’t be bothered to look”. It seems to be an excuse to overtake cyclists on the approach to traffic lights, swerve across to brush the kerb and jam the brakes on.
Well here is one cyclist that
Well here is one cyclist that that was “Alert today” which is lucky as this @Sainsburys lorry nearly ran him over:
https://youtu.be/LyJ1k5_Wq6o
chiefoldmist wrote:
Glad you are still here to share the story.
chiefoldmist wrote:
Awful driving and great cycling!
But it just goes to show that when you stay alert and don’t cycle like a mindless twat, 99.9% of the time you have time to take evasive action. I think every new cyclist should watch that clip to learn how to position yourself at junctions and how to be ready for the unexpected at all times.
Good stuff.
I stopped using Sainsburys
I stopped using Sainsburys months ago. Mostly because their products are “bad value for money” if I’m being polite, or a “bloody rip-off” if I’m not. Hopefully others follow suit and a happy byproduct of this is that there will be a diminished need for these trucks to be on the roads!…
Vlad Levachyov wrote:
Oh come on… they’re a supermarket, hardly a bloody ripoff and actually one of the better ones despite this spectacularly stupid tagline. If you don’t want supermarkets, that’s fine -not necessarily my choice but I respect your opinion – but if you can tolerate them then, believe me, there are far more deserving targets than them.
Vlad Levachyov wrote:
Dup