Cyclists stay back! stickers

i met an engineer who had a sticker with a similar 'stay back' message printed for the back of his van. he was self employed and had it custom made by a vinyl company at his own expense for the purpose of deterring cyclists from overtaking him, after he had hit one! he was genuinely a really nice guy but just a bit confused. i did try and preach the idea that cyclists are vulnerable, and that maybe the same cyclists that under/overtake dangerously are also likely to ignore such signage. the vinyl was huge, same width as one of the back doors and he said it cost him over 100, laughably impressed. i mainly struggle to understand why people feel this disdain for cyclists, lets face it, we already have a pretty raw deal in London and urbanised Britain.

^
"i mainly struggle to understand why people feel this disdain for cyclists"

• Because we are a seemingly new out group.

• Quite a few choose to wear garments that look alien or weird and allow individuals of one group to separate themselves mentally from individuals of the other group.

• We are vulnerable in comparison to motorised vehicles and are therefore seen as easy targets for motorists to vent their many frustrations from road use.

• There is a lack of proper understanding on both sides and drivers see a lot of cyclists poor behaviour (not just the obvious rljs) but general impatience, bum rushing/pushing to the front/bottle necking junctions -especially those junctions that don't even have ASLs which causes fear (the majority don't want to cause harm) which in turn leads to agitation. People do not like uncertainty.

• Add to the fact that many drivers when on foot have to dice with yet more uncertain behaviour from cyclists (some of whom see stopping for peds as an optional extra) the strawman is compounded.

• It's fucking cool to bash cyclists especially if you're of a right wing bent safe in the knowledge there is little come back.

• There are a hell of a lot of cyclists that have never driven* and have gaps in their own understanding of best practise which leads to disparate actions (naturally). But this variability doesn't fit the media narrative which is to blanket which ever out group they're targeting (see: muslims, lesbians, white working class).

• It doesn't help that driving instructors aren't help to better account of their syllabus.

• Poor, after thought, illogical, unfit for purpose infrastructure only makes matter worse.

• Those that work in the media have the power to dispel myths but instead compound differing issues, which is why we see comment sections on cyclists and/or fatalities overrun with the worst of humanity.

In the end it (always) adds up to IGNORANCE.

*not that taking a test means you're gonna be an amazing road user.

compliments of

http://jrwcommercials.co.uk/

Bit late to reply to my respondees, but never mind.

I totally understand the dangers of riding close to the back of trucks, but my question was about measured risks. I.e., is this actually injuring or killing people? Less so than undertaking followed by left turning crushing.

If that is true, why are these stickers worded in a way that, to me, falls about riding too close, rather than undertaking? Why don't they say "Cyclists stay safe, stay behind."

The message us confused and, probably victimising.

^
^
^
Well said.

There's one other reason for drivers' antagonism towards cyclists - a sort of unacknowledged jealousy of people who are perceived to behave in ways drivers would, secretly, like to (ignoring red lights, evading queues at junctions, abandoning the road for the pavement) but don't. It mirrors the middle class attitude towards other out groups too (e.g. the media narrative condemning those who claim benefits or display other signs of working class 'irresponsibility').

Saw this on the side of a massive artic lorry last night. Apart from being in completely the wrong place on the vehicle I'm not sure if I agree with the wording. I the driver can't see cyclists then surely they shouldn't be driving such a vehicle
http://flic.kr/p/o5xXCe
http://flic.kr/p/o5xXCe

Saw this on the side of a massive artic lorry last night. Apart from being in completely the wrong place on the vehicle I'm not sure if I agree with the wording. I the driver can't see cyclists then surely they shouldn't be driving such a vehicle
http://flic.kr/p/o5xXCe
http://flic.kr/p/o5xXCe

if some idiot has ridden down the side of the lorry at some lights thats probably a perfect place for them to see the sticker.

its not the drivers responsibility to be responsible for everyone else on the road. take responsibility for yourself and ride where you can see the mirrors, not that hard is it?

as multi grooves said - "There are a hell of a lot of cyclists that have never driven* and have gaps in their own understanding of best practise which leads to disparate actions (naturally)."

i personally recon this is the biggest issue.

+1

Ultimately we have a the most to gain from measures such as these stickers. There's too much whinging about the colour of the lifeboat and not enough rowing.

Bit late to reply to my respondees, but never mind.

I totally understand the dangers of riding close to the back of trucks, but my question was about measured risks. I.e., is this actually injuring or killing people? Less so than undertaking followed by left turning crushing.

If that is true, why are these stickers worded in a way that, to me, falls about riding too close, rather than undertaking? Why don't they say "Cyclists stay safe, stay behind."

The message us confused and, probably victimising.

As I said, the risks are real. People do fall off because they hit stuff in the road when drafting. Is it THE most dangerous thing you can do on a bike? I shouldn't think so. Does the three word sign cover these nuances... of course not.

Do you think 'stay behind' would be a less controversial instruction?

These stickers have caused a stir because Cyclists are not the danger, blind spots are.

Trucks having signs that read 'Blindspots stay back' is useful and the other stickers are not. They demonstrate a lack if understanding of the issues but ultimately people can sticker-up their private vehicles however they like.

^Well, no, they can't as the Guardian article makes clear - TFL requitre them from any company doing work for it, so they end up on small vans where 'stay back' makes little or no sense. Companies could choose to do no work for TFL, I suppose.
Anyway, they are not warning stickers, they are worded, at best, as advice and at worst as an order. They don't warn about anything.

I need a sticker to stop cyclists riding in the 6ft gap between the rear of my truck and the front of the chipper. It's fucking terrifying when they decide to go in there. Especially as the trailer hitch on the chipper has a shock absorber that means if I brake a little harder than usual the gap closes by about 8inches.
I tried to remedy this by hooking hiviz bungees from the corner of the truck to the chipper and hanging bits of barrier tape from them(all at around elbow height) in an attempt to keep people out but all that happened was people rode into the bungees while trying to enter the gap.
I have no problem with people using it as a refuge on the drivers side if I'm stationary while they overtake traffic and something big comes the other way but if I see someone disappear into the gap whilst moving theres pretty much nothing I can do but continue at the same speed in a straight line til they reappear. When in the gap the brake/indicator lights are far too low for them to be able to see what my intentions might be.
This is the king of all blind spots, please stay away from it people! If anyone can think of a snappy slogan to put on a sticker for that situation I'd appreciate it...

edit: why the fuck did I put an apostrophe in 'trees'?

Put a spinning set of razor wire in there coupled to the power take off.

Should do the trick.

Picture of Hippy, naked on a tiger skin rug being oiled by his midgets should do the trick.

Oh and I checked one day with my Surly lht, with the shock absorber open there's a tiny gap front and rear but with it closed the gap is definitely shorter than the overall length of bike so the potential for an incident is sadly very real. If everyone rode a stayer it'd be fine.

mash and dam repped.

edit: why the fuck did I put an apostrophe in 'trees'?

You were preparing to chop that bit off?

You really would be justified in putting up warning stickers about the likely antics of the trailer.

TL;DR

I see a good subvertisement opportunity.

if some idiot has ridden down the side of the lorry at some lights thats probably a perfect place for them to see the sticker.

its not the drivers responsibility to be responsible for everyone else on the road. take responsibility for yourself and ride where you can see the mirrors, not that hard is it?
Actually it IS the driver's responsibility not to endanger any other road user, particularly not to kill them.

A cyclist stopped in front of this sign should be seen by the driver in the overhead mirror and probably in the wide angle mirror. The overhead mirrors to the side and front of big lorries give a view 2 metres out to the side and front of the lorry - that is the area marked out by the orange lines when the Police do 'changing places' events.
Most cyclist fatalities involving HGVs in London happen when the cyclist is hit from behind or from the side by the very front of the lorry. In almost all of these cases the cyclist has passed through an area visible to the driver, if he/she had been checking the mirrors at the appropriate time.

The myth is that blind spots cause casualties. I think that it is reasonable for a driver to be responsible for not moving his/her lorry into an area of road with restricted visibility without taking extra care to ensure there are no pedestrians or cyclists in that area.

The area more than 2 metres away from the left side of a large lorry is the most hazardous hidden area. Many drivers are unaware that this is where most victims are before a sharp turn brings the lorry across their path and runs them down. The Stay Back message is pointless for the cyclist who passes in the lane to the left of a lorry before it turns, or for the case where the lorry overtakes a cyclist then slows dramatically while cutting across their path.

For large lorries with restricted visibility it is appropriate to warn cyclists of the danger. "Stay Back" is not a warning but a command. It implies that the cyclist has responsibilty for avoiding carelessly driven lorries. Also it is totally the wrong message for vans and buses where the driver does not have the same problem seeing the road around him/her.

This is what I wrote to the chair of Transport for London's Cycle Safety Working Group

As you know all the cycling stakeholders in the CSWG are extremely concerned about the proliferation of "Cyclists Stay Back" stickers on vans, buses, cars and lorries. Please could we have this issue as the main point on the agenda for this week's Cycle Safety Working Group.

In February the cycling groups wrote to Leon Daniels, managing director of Surface Transport at TfL, asking for action to remove the inappropriate stickers from vehicles on London roads. He suggested that we raise this issue in the Cycle Safety Working Group. He was not aware that we had already raised this in the December and February meetings.

There are two substantive issues:

1. The use of any such message on a vehicle that is not a large lorry with restricted visibility to the front and side of the cab is wholly inappropriate. It implies as shift of responsibility from the driver of such vehicles to potential victims.
   
2. The wording of the sticker "Cyclists Stay Back" is inappropriate on any vehicle. It implies a prohibition that does not exist in law. It does not convey the essential information about risk occurring during turning movements. It encourages a driver to believe all cyclists legally overtaking are in the wrong and it tends to support lack of care.
   
   

It is clear that these stickers have created a high level of resentment amongst cyclists and in some cases increased abuse aimed at cyclists from other road users. This breakdown in empathy between different road users can only result in an increase in danger to all.

There is more detail in the web links below.

We understand that the use and distribution of these stickers was carried out with best intentions however that should not preclude Transport for London working together with stakeholders to remove them from inappropriate vehicles and restore a meaningful message to the stickers for large HGVs.

In March 2012 we reluctantly agreed to the use of "Stay Back" on the poster campaign to highlight the risk to cyclists from turning lorries. It was explained that a poster message needed to be understood in less than a second. There was also an assurance that this messaging would run in parallel with messages to lorry drivers highlighting their responsibility to watch out for and not run over cyclists. We now accept that is was a mistake to give support to a message which was reduced to such an extent that the meaning was lost and misinterpretation would lead to a breakdown in respect for other road users.

The original wording on stickers for large lorries was "Cyclists. Beware of passing this vehicle on the inside." That text was developed in partnership between TfL and LCC and we encouraged its use because it gives a clear warning to cyclists and also acts as a reminder to drivers about the inherent risks from driving poorly designed vehicles on urban streets.

These weblinks provide a wider perspective of the negative impact of "Stay Back" stickers on the cycling community.

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/london-cyclists-object-to-stay-back-command-on-lorries-and-buses
http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/05/30/transport-for-london-show-contempt-for-danger-reduction-and-cycling/
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/cycling-and-safety-groups-restate-objections-to-tfl-sticker-on-vans-and-buses
http://road.cc/content/news/120778-are-bad-drivers-using-stay-back%E2%80%99-stickers-excuse
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jun/12/the-madness-of-stay-back-cyclist-stickers#comment-36897916

if drivers see that in their mirrors they will definately be more considerate towards cyclists. problem solved here methinks.

Except it will read "yxes yats ,stsilcyC" ;)

^^^ & ^^ Really good posts charlie_lcc. You make a clear and strong argument.

I would wear a sign on my back saying "If you can read this, you're WAY too close" and/or "Don't even think about going around me - that includes you Mr undertaking cyclist." Not really a fan of confrontation though or providing distractions.

I have often wondered whether those widely used 'stay back' stickers are:
a - at all helpful,
b - make drivers more complacent/eschewing of their responsibility, and/or
c - the best possible message anyway.

I don't like being told what to do at the best of times, especially not by road users I think should be banned from driving in central London before yet more cyclists die under their wheels.

Really, I would advise cyclists to avoid passing the inside of any vehicle, big or small, junction or not, but as we all know, the way our roads are laid out means that we are usually encouraged to filter through or stop in the most dangerous places.

I'm considering getting some bib shorts made by Milltag with 'Cyclists - Stay classy' on the bum (in the style of the TfL sticker ofc), if hippy doesn't mind us swiping his slogan. Anyone keen? Milltag''ve said they'll do it if we have 10 people in, up to 3 so far...

Er, please continue the actual debate around this :D

I'm considering getting some bib shorts made by Milltag with 'Cyclists - Stay classy' on the bum (in the style of the TfL sticker ofc), if hippy doesn't mind us swiping his slogan. Anyone keen? Milltag''ve said they'll do it if we have 10 people in, up to 3 so far...

Ha! I've been wanting to ask Ed Milltag to do something very similar for ages...maybe you should start a thread Rosie?