Cyclists stay back! stickers

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Catriona Patel was drunk and chatting on a mobile.

The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns had faulty eyesight (the police didn't even bother to discover this until the same driver killed another woman.)

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile. The police decided to charge him with..nothing.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Andrew McNicoll failed to notice him and side swiped him.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

That makes grim reading.

It should be printed and stuck over all the stay back stickers.

when a lorry, bus, car or pedestrian stops doing stuff that is unsafe, irritating, infuriating, offensive or down right stupid on the roads....then so will I.

Christ! Is that a learner sticker?

Yes, probably a better idea that HGV drivers have some form of training rather than being let loose on the roads without any.

Yup, very true. Mine comment was a reflex action based on the fear that the big red "L" gave me.

Isn't it exactly the point though that you're *not *meant to filter if there's no way to keep clear?

But how "clear". If the traffic is totally stationary with no possibility of the HGV moving before I can pass it *and *I wouldn't be filtering between it and a fence or another large vehicle, then I will filter past it. In doing so I'm likely to come pretty close to it. If this constitutes "not keeping clear" then I'm not sure how HGVs and cyclists are meant to interact within the context of that advice. It's a shame because the rest of the sign is good. If it had finished with "pass with caution and as wide as possible when safe" that would have made more sense.

Using the example of the "don't walk close to this vehicle at any time" signs: if the HGV with it on drives next to a pavement then it will be within a couple of feet of pedestrians (closer still if it clips the curb when cornering). The point is that, if these vehicles are as dangerous as the signs make out, why are they allowed into cities? Is the expectation that pedestrians should just scatter away from them like they're running from an escaped zoo animal?

"my vehicle isn't safe, and that's your problem"

If it's such a fucking deathtrap, what the fuck are you doing driving it into a city?

Delivering materials to build the places we all live and work, building the railway network, delivering food, delivering bikes to bike shops...

Pretty much everything you do today will involve using material delivered by a heavy goods vehicle.

Other people have responded well to this comment, but I'll add this: I've never understood this type of argument. What exactly are you trying to say? We all know what HGVs do i.e., what they're used for, but saying "everything **you **do today will involve using material delivered by a heavy goods vehicle" does not in any way lead to the conclusion that **I **should be happy with the current situation and just shut up, or that there is no better, safer solution to getting goods into the city.

As other people have pointed out, it should be possible to transport a lot of stuff in smaller vehicles or simply design HGVs that are not so dangerous (LCC have had a stab). Alternatively, perhaps we should just reconsider our priorities for a liveable city and judge road safety to be more important than the rock-bottom price of some of the shit that populates our shops.

Our freight system is very badly organised at present. There's a world of improvements to be made which are being resisted at the moment.

A simple example is that Central London has very well-defined business districts. We spend billions on getting people there by underground railways but almost nothing on suitable freight logistics, which are left in the hands of largely unaccountable private operators, many with very questionable records, notwithstanding a couple who are very good, of course. They run heavy vehicles overground, causing considerable road danger.

It would make a lot more sense to stop building underground passenger railways (people generally prefer being overground, so it makes little sense to stick them underground) and build a few not very expensive underground freight railways to those business districts. Goods could arrive at a central building from which workbikes could pick them up for last-mile delivery. The occasional delivery of large or delicate items would still have to be made by heavy overground vehicle, but it would cut the number of such trips right down and wouldn't be rocket science.

Obviously, many other, less innovative improvements could also be made.

They run heavy vehicles overground, causing considerable road danger.

Not to mention considerable road damage.

And traffic congestion.

Less HGVs transporting tarmac to fix potholes caused by HGVs transporting tarmac making potholes...

Mindblown.gif

when a lorry, bus, car or pedestrian stops doing stuff that is unsafe, irritating, infuriating, offensive or down right stupid on the roads....then so will I.

While I understand the sentiment that you seek to express, i fear that if you wish to persist in behaviour that is unsafe or downright stupid (as well as offensive, infuriating or irritating) you may not last long enough to see the cessation of such activity by other road users.

You, unlike they (other than the pedestrians) are not protected by a big metal box. You should take care and cycle responsibly.

They should also use the road responsibly, with a mind to the potential lethal nature of their vehicles and not seek to abdicate their responsibility by sticking signs on the backs of their vehicles.

Our freight system is very badly organised at present.

When has it ever been well organised ?

Obviously, many other, less innovative improvements could also be made.

Like what and obvious to whom ?

^^ cliveo makes a valid point here about the asymmetry of road users. Bearing that in mind it occurs to me that if a million patronising and offensively worded stickers manage to save even one life then they are probably a good thing. Not a reason to stop taking against them, but maybe a reason to not be smugly dogmatic in our disdain for them.

Misguided, worth changing, but ultimately motivated by saving lives. That is worth a brief, but genuine thank you to whoever made them.

^^ to whom

STAY BACK
THIS IS A
DRIVERLESS
VEHICLE

sticker

Blood drains from face, urgh. Hard to form a constructive response. Mildly off topic but most constructive response I can muster: If the IDAHO STOP was put in place and publicised accordingly, it might help the UK to acknowledge cyclists' place on the road and the logic behind some of the habits that rile drivers but are safe and practical from a bike perspective.

Ummm. Ahh.

Parding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT
THIS IS A
DRIVERLESS
VEHICLE
AND PROGRAMMED NOT TO HURT HUMANS

sticker

Ftw

Not to mention considerable road damage.

No, all the damage is caused by hippy, who then blames it on buses.

Like what and obvious to whom ?

The LCC has put forward a good few:

http://www.no-more-lethal-lorries.org.uk/

There's also freight consolidation, i.e. taking more freight into one lorry and cutting out much of the multi-drop driving in London, i.e. one lorry to go to one cluster of businesses (of many different kinds) in one area instead of x lorries each going to fifteen branches of one kind of business all over London throughout a day.

Drivers should not be sole operators but have a driver's mate with them. This would be especially important for major construction-related traffic.

Drivers should not be placed under ridiculous deadline pressure.

I could go on. Most of these things would cost money (although freight consolidation can produce big savings), so that they are being resisted. Obvious to whom? To everybody who doesn't want to save money in conducting freight operations.

^^ cliveo makes a valid point here about the asymmetry of road users. Bearing that in mind it occurs to me that if a million patronising and offensively worded stickers manage to save even one life then they are probably a good thing. Not a reason to stop taking against them, but maybe a reason to not be smugly dogmatic in our disdain for them.

Misguided, worth changing, but ultimately motivated by saving lives. That is worth a brief, but genuine thank you to whoever made them.

Disagree because, in getting one rider to behave more safely, the stickers will have painted cyclists as irresponsible and dangerous to thousands. This may cause some drivers to act aggressively towards cyclists.

Anti-cyclism is rampant; it should not be fuelled!

Ftw

Mine was a clumsy attempt to express that HGVs/vehicles don't drive themselves - as in " I was hit by a van driver" rather than " I was hit by a van "

Saw this on a croydon council truck today.

Pricelessly rude.

Disagree because, in getting one rider to behave more safely, the stickers will have painted cyclists as irresponsible and dangerous to thousands. This may cause some drivers to act aggressively towards cyclists.

Anti-cyclism is rampant; it should not be fuelled!

So you think that these stickers are more likely to lead to more deaths of cyclists than lives saved?

I suppose that might be true but I personally disagree. Interesting that that view is held by some though. Fair enough.

These seem to be two untestable conjectures and we are arguing about how many cyclists can dance on the head of a pin. Of course we could institute a RCT (Randomisrd, Controlled Trial) across some HGV companies or different areas of operation. With different messages etc. But hey, investing that kind of money is the purview of medical research, not road traffic death research.