Cyclists stay back! stickers

If the driver ahead has indicated left, slowed, and the cyclist has come up the inside in the mean time - it's the cyclist who's being bloody stupid.
We have cars, lorries and bikes sharing the roads. It's not fucking ideal, but it's the way it is. Us cyclists can scream all we want about being vulnerable and motorists needing to take care, but we've got to take care of ourselves too. Most of us do. Some are too stupid to do so sometimes. Sometimes a sign might help. Mostly it doesn't.

No, the person who is crossing a lane of traffic is meant to wait. There is often the supposition that cyclists by virtue of their mode of transport lose priority, this is not the case.

Yes it would be wise to wait for the left turning vehicle, simply because of the potential risk. But how many drivers in cars would bother waiting for a lorry in the outside lane indicating to turn left? Generally very few.

How often do drivers overtake cyclists to then immediately turn left across their path? Again it's that same behaviour of taking the priority from the cyclist.

I guess in the case of lorries, the blind spot is often huge. Bad design it may be, but again it's unwise to fight bad design with your bike.
I get what you're saying - the cyclist should have priority. In practice, as you've pointed out, they don't due to the joy of might-is-right.
It sucks. I've had some really shitty moments in the past week alone due to drivers being utterly horrific people. We need driverless cars and we need them yesterday.

A lorry ahead of me is indicating left. I continue travelling on my path as if it is not there, and get knocked off.

The driver have the responsibilities to ensure it's safe to turn.

If the driver ahead has indicated left, slowed, and the cyclist has come up the inside in the mean time - it's the cyclist who's being bloody stupid.

That may as well be, but the responsiblites still lie on the drivers;

Rules 204;
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.

Rule 211;
It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.

Rule 212;
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

Rule 213;
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

the "Alert today...alive tomorrow" part of the sticker on the Sainsbury's lorry is very patronising in my opinion.

Worse than patronising given the injury statistics. Most of the recent dead could have been as alert as they wanted, they were still killed by bad driving.

I still question the need for such large vehicles in cities anyway. The 'supermarkets' in London are smaller than the bloody trucks delivering to them!

Let me post rules 211 again;

look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.

The whole point is that lorries in their current form have huge and uncheckable blind spots. They're dangerous, no one's denying that, but as long as they're on the road - watch the fuck out.

The issue is the implication that having the warning on the back of the vehicle somehow absolves the driver of responsibility. Your stating the cyclist is bloody stupid for carrying on up the road shows where you consider the blame lies.

rule 211 is great, but there's no 'must' so drivers, as ever can do whatever the fuck they like. And when they do kill somebody, if it even makes it to court the judge will tell the jury to ignore the Highway Code and they'll hand the driver back their keys.

if it even makes it to court the judge will tell the jury to ignore the Highway Code

That has actually happened.

The truly jaw-dropping moment in this case comes at the end, when the judge allegedly states that the jury “will be directed to ignore Highway Code [rules 93 and 237, advising drivers to] slow down or stop if dazzled [because the] Highway Code is not law” and that the defendant’s failure to adhere to such rules “could be used as evidence of without due care and attention, or could be ignored“.

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/futility/

Remember, crucially, that although the Highway Code is indeed not itself law, the specific charge applied here is based on the expected behaviour of “a careful and competent driver”. One might expect such a driver to – at the very least – broadly adhere to the advice in the Highway Code.

But the judge’s direction appears to be that the Highway Code does not have any value in that context: in other words, that one need not pay the slightest attention to the Highway Code in order to be legally considered a careful and competent driver.

Worse than patronising given the injury statistics. Most of the recent dead could have been as alert as they wanted, they were still killed by bad driving.

If the majority of recent dead have been killed by being left hooked (rather than undertaking a left turning vehicle) then maybe those signs/stickers (along with the posters, adverts and other education) are doing their job.

I just don't see the point in having a go at the stickers/signs just because lorries kill loads of people in different circumstances.

I think most would agree that the sentiment of is fine.

Not according to this thread. The value of the sentiment is nuanced as to how much it acts as a warning to inattentive cyclists, and how much it leads to drivers being less attentive and absolving themselves of the responsibility of looking in their mirrors.

We all have stories or have heard stories of being overtaken and left hooked, and told that we should have seen the sticker...

Yeah this was the case I was referring too.

The whole point is that lorries in their current form have huge and uncheckable blind spots. They're dangerous, no one's denying that, but as long as they're on the road - watch the fuck out.

So, if the blind spot is uncheckable then wait before turning, a period of time long enough for a vulnerable road user on your inside to have transited the blind spot.

Exactly as we do as car drivers when changing lane on a multi lane carriageway.

Y U no turn haed?

Except the death stats predate the stickers, so no the stickers could not have caused the distribution of blame. . If the stickers did anything the distribution would have changed.

Y U no turn haed?

do you even drive, bro

There are stats for this? Got a link?

So basically the Highway Code, that was part of the Theory Test we need to take in order to get a license should be ignored and taken with a pinch of salt according to the judge.

Welp.

I'd says it's simply that those HGV were designed to travel on motorways from facility to facility.

And, as Charlie often stresses, they're an off-road specification, i.e. they're designed to be driven around quarries and the like.

an industry that habitually employs provably dangerous individuals as a result of an almost non-existent system of checks and balances on their suitability

Politics?

Graphic design?