We get the EU version of the systems by default, no company is going to make a crapper system just for the UK!
The head of transport then said, “I hate cyclists, that just get in the **** way”
This is what we’re up against, stay save…
The Transport Manager in head office at my new job and my boss are both cyclists so this attitude just doesn't exist thankfully!
I'd be okay with a sign that warned about passing on the inside, but that's just a "no cycling" sign. I think that's entirely the wrong subliminal message.
What exactly are you going to put in your strongly worded letter?
No need to get lairy, it was a discussion point and to be honest I'm glad it didn't flop after one reply!
What if...that sort of sign is enforcing a poor culture where drivers are anti cyclist or believe it absolves them of blame? And therefore a lack of care and attention?
The notion a driver will not bother to check mirrors because they’ve got a sign out back is frankly ridiculous
I'd say it's entirely plausible and as per many driver attitudes, they'll grasp at any opportunity to shift the blame to lycra clad scum (or your Mum riding to the shops)
Brakes Food Service when they receive a "strongly worded letter" about a bike warning sign on their vans...
@spooky there is a discussion to be had on how we can make the roads safer but linking the presence of a sign on the back of van to the outcomes you are suggesting is very far fetched.
Isn’t it more plausible an inexperienced cyclist (as we all start out as) may see the sign and realise undertaking a lorry could potentially be risky?
Saw one on a bus the other day
I think they are bloody excellent. Way too many idiots on bikes cut up the nearside of vehicles turning left, not all of them survive. The only reason to object to the extra warning is if you are a hard core fan of Darwin. Which is a perfectly valid position, to be fair.
The only reason to object to the extra warning is if you are a hard core fan of Darwin. Which is a perfectly valid position, to be fair.
Again the use of them as additional aids for when a vehicle is making a left turn is perfecty fine. A 'NO CYCLISTS' sign is not fine. Filtering on the inside of traffic is perfectly fine, in the highway code and many cycle lanes enchorage it. Some drivers will take this as a 'well they shouldn't be there' excuse, when there are perfectly valid reasons for being there. It does nothing for the driver-cyclist relationship or lack of currently.
Obviously anyone who is going intentionally make risky moves is going to ignore the signs anyway, but I still don't think that particular sign is the right one. the little yellow warning sign above is much more approriate. IMO.
Edit: Anyway, its the weekend now so I'm out of the conversation. Have fun and stay safe!
All the difference. As it’s illuminated, it’s legally a lamp, and as such requires a specific approval mark for vehicle use. If it doesn’t have it - which I’d bet money on if it’s just a generic LED sign - the entire vehicle is unroadworthy.If you can cope with a non illuminated version without contacting the ceo of the company then what difference do a few leds make?
I’d also bet that it falls foul of regulation covering the proper use of road signs, but cannot be arsed to search for that 😀
I’d agree that some cyclists are so stupid that maybe this would save a few lives (education would be much better though) but I also agree it’s victim blaming and arse-covering.
If I see ‘ Brakes’’ on a vehicle it’s always worth keeping clear of whether on a bike,in a car or anything must be in the job description for their drivers?
Isn’t it more plausible an inexperienced cyclist (as we all start out as) may see the sign and realise undertaking a lorry could potentially be risky?
If you didn't already know what it meant, because you're an inexperienced cyclist, then I'm really not sure that a no cycling sign would obviously mean that passing on the left could be a risk.
it’s victim blaming and arse-covering.
Or it's paranoid cyclists refusing to accept any suggestion that an attempt to help them might have any value
Filtering on the inside of traffic is perfectly fine,
While legal. It's a shit idea. Plenty of things are legal but Ill advised.
Just because the cycle lanes are painted there out of convienance (for councils to claim to be cycle friendly)doesn't make it good road positioning.
Every cyclist should watch this very short but extremely demonstrative video. Even though it does now look like it was filmed on a potato.
A classic of the victim blaming narrative rolled out once again. Yes, this demonstrates a truck that has driven past a cycle lane, then turned left into it, even though the driver would have had a clear view of the cyclists on the approach.
Demonstrating the mirrors only show the curtain side when the cab is turned is a lesson to drivers to observe their surroundings before manoeuvring across a lane.
It seems well intentioned to me tbh but somehow manages to be a step back from the more normal stickers. Thing is, there's a LOT of real estate there and generally undertaking cyclists aren't going that fast, they could do so much more.
(also, I only clicked into this thread because the title almost gave me a stroke trying to read it)
jimmy
Full MemberSome cyclists are brainless and lazy too without an understanding of potential consequences of seeing a gap and going for it.
Not picking on you in particular, it was just the post I happened to notice first but... Most people assume that other vehicles are reasonably safe. If we invented vehicles with gigantic cyclist-killing blind spots today they'd not be allowed on the road, or at least not without huge mitigation.
I got to thinking about this after an accident at my work. We had a load of building going on and constant 8-wheeler traffic. As soon as they entered the worksite, which was closed to everyone that didn't work there, they had to drive only through specified routes with prior permission, always have a codriver/observer, have beacons on, couldn't maneouvre without a banksman, and everyone around them was wearing hi-viz and had been trained about how to avoid them. And if anyone got squashed, there'd be investigations, serious consideration of whether their traffic plan was negligent etc etc.
The second they drove out that gate into the world of students studenting, they were just normal traffic.
The building site treated them like the risk they are. The rest of the world is supposed to do all of that themselves. Imagine if you had some other industrial machine, a big lathe, which in the factory had barriers and shields and training requirements and allsorts, but you could just plonk it down in the middle of town and fire swarf at people and have pedestrians blunder into it and get turned to death then say "but it's OBVIOUSLY dangerous so you should have avoided it"
As soon as they entered the worksite, which was closed to everyone that didn’t work there, they had to drive only through specified routes with prior permission, always have a codriver/observer, have beacons on, couldn’t maneouvre without a banksman, and everyone around them was wearing hi-viz and had been trained about how to avoid them.
So, if general traffic was organized like that:
1. Heavy vehicles limited to driving on roads, not on pedestrian or cycle paths.
2. Areas where heavy vehicles permitted closed to cyclists and pedestrians.
3. Heavy vehicles required to be preceded by a person on foot waving a red flag.
4. All road users required to wear hi-viz.
5. All road users trained in how to avoid heavy vehicles.
You should write to your MP and propose legislation.
Northwind, that’s an excellent point.
Those responsible for those vehicles know how dangerous they are. Make them safer.
Or it’s paranoid cyclists refusing to accept any suggestion that an attempt to help them might have any value
I'll cut some slack here but the situation @zilog6128 describes is normal in H&S management circles. It was a major problem when I was working as an advisor. "How can we do as little as possible and be compliant"?" is prevalent and most think a big wedge of completed paperwork on shelves will cover their arses. (No, no it won't you need to walk the walk too).
So are folk not filtering past bigger vehicles (or at all?) in stationery, or slow moving traffic?
So are folk not filtering past bigger vehicles (or at all?) in stationery, or slow moving traffic?
No. I filter down the RHS in stationary traffic. - same as I would on a motorcycle or moped.
I’ll cut some slack here but the situation @zilog6128 describes is normal in H&S management circles. It was a major problem when I was working as an advisor. “How can we do as little as possible and be compliant”?” is prevalent and most think a big wedge of completed paperwork on shelves will cover their arses. (No, no it won’t you need to walk the walk too).
Exactly this and one of the multitude of reasons I left my last role. The MD didn't like my risk assessments as they discovered too many hazards, that would cost money when implementing changes and change the way work was carried out, they ended up on shelves in a folder and the work carried on as before. Guess what, accidents kept happening.
No. I filter down the RHS in stationary traffic. – same as I would on a motorcycle or moped.
This.
And I certainly wouldn't filter up the LHS of a vehicle showing a left turn signal reinforced by a "no cycling" sign
I'm a very proactive cyclist. I also drive a large vehicle like the one in question as part of my daily working life. In an ideal world I'd like my fellow cyclists to get in the driver's seat while you demonstrate the frankly scary extent of the blind spots down the left hand side. And then send my fellow van drivers out on bikes for a week to get a sense of what they experience every time they swing a leg over the saddle.
But that won't happen. You owe it to yourself to educate yourself and others you care about (I'm constantly banging on at my lady-ebike riding sister about taking primary position, not riding down inside large vehicles, etc). Personally I think the OP needs to have a word with himself but that's just me.
Personally I think the OP needs to have a word with himself but that’s just me.
Personally I think you need a word with yourself about normalising the risk.
There are three problems with the sign.
First it adds to the general clutter by being permanently on and only flashing when turning left. If the risk is for turning left it should only activate then. Otherwise it fades into the background. A similar one seems to be having a "vehicle is turning left" loudspeaker going off. Which on a busy industrial estate soons blurs into pointless noise when they all go off at every roundabout.
Second it is a no cycling sign rather than a dont undertake on the left. Which helps feed into the cyclists shouldnt be on the road.
Thirdly its an abdication of responsibility and a rather flawed one since it assumes the cyclist is always going to be the one making the dangerous manoeuvre and hence needs warning off rather than making the vehicle safer.
Your references to cyclists should go and sit in a vehicle to see the blindspots is rather telling. Shouldnt the emphasis be on removing said blindspots?
Going back to the building site example. How well do you think the conversation with HSE would go after someone dies if you went "well we stuck a sign up saying dont do that. What more was needed?".
So these stickers and signs weren’t on vehicles about 10 years ago and now loads have them… do we know if they’ve made a difference to accidents on the road? have fewer lorries/vans actually crushed cyclists by turning left over them?
It's physics, the reality of human frailty, notions of personal responsibility, risk assessment in the real world. I completely get where you're coming from, and Northwind's post above is a great discussion point. As a cyclist myself, I'm super careful round people on bikes (especially the ones that are a danger to themselves and everybody else). Not all drivers are, unfortunately. Big flashing warning signs probably aren't such a bad idea in some circumstances.
the frankly scary extent of the blind spots down the left hand side
To me that says that these vehicles shouldn't be on the road, not that they need a warning sticker or light.
one making the dangerous manoeuvre
If they put themselves on the left hand side of a large vehicle approaching from the rear (ie passing that sign) then yes the cyclist is the one making the dangerous maneuver.
then yes the cyclist is the one making the dangerous maneuver.
Yes now read the words immediately preceding it. How does this flashing sign solve the cases when its the driver making the dangerous maneuver.
Any one noticed the 'Angles Mort' stickers which are a legal requirement on all lorries on the continent and our vehicles going there, after you've seen the first few they just disappear into the general background and a British cyclist would be hard pressed to get what was meant, and I am not referring to the language barrier!
Please be careful, not a dead pedant.
How does this flashing sign solve the cases when its the driver making the dangerous maneuver.
It doesn't because that's not what it's for. It's specifically for the case where a cyclist may decide to pass on the left and put themselves in danger. I thought that would be rather obvious but I guess not, much like the "no cycling" sign on the LHS of the lorry. Of course its not imploring cyclists to pull over and walk instead but clearly some folk just want to be victims, one way or another.
Most (possibly all) large vehicles operating in London will have to be part of the FORS register. These are guidelines for operators and have three levels. Each level requires increasing compliance and in cab tech. The tech in some of the new trucks is brilliant, they have in cab screens, audible warnings inside and out. They are getting safer all the time. Anything to help is good, don’t take it personally as a slight on your ability as a cyclist!
FORS, suggests not to have signs that tell people what to do and not to do. They recommend that you point at the risk not tell people what to do.
As a prohibition sign I don’t think that the OP Brakes one would be okay with FORS.
IN London there is a newer program on road safety, TFLvehicles now need to have the additional near side low level window afaik. This also helps as things in London usually filter out to the rest of the uk.
Edit. Most of the drivers I speak to hate driving in cities. It’s seriously stressful. They are humans too, they don’t like squashing people, neither do the businessman who operate and own the companies they work for. It is hard enough finding drivers anyway at the moment, most good companies are investing big piles of cash to make things safer and easier for the drivers and the people around them. They deserve credit for that. Oh and who would be the first to complain when the coffee shop has run out of almond milk because there was no delivery! They aren’t driving about for fun are they!
Yes now read the words immediately preceding it. How does this flashing sign solve the cases when its the driver making the dangerous maneuver.
For the hard of thinking. A vehicle overtaking and then coming in on you is a very different issue (that the sign doesn't claim to fix) from the cyclist who chooses to travel down the inside of a vehicle - which is by product of our governments policy
As I said right back at the start. If the sign saves one life it's done its job as far as I'm concerned. I'd have liked if it was my mates fiance but it's too late for that.
But apart from that your dead right.....
It doesn’t because that’s not what it’s for. It’s specifically for the case where a cyclist may decide to pass on the left and put themselves in danger
Does it? Since it is always on and is just a simple prohibition sign. It requires someone to actually have the relevant knowledge that passing on the left is dangerous already for it to be of any use.
Its adding a bunch of useless noise to the environment. If it only came on when indicating left it might have something going for it but being permanently on and flashing left really isnt a sensible UX design decision.
Since it is always on
No it's not, the ones I've seen flash with the left turn indicator
They don’t work do they? Maybe if we rode everywhere with “Don’t Lefthook Me” signs on our backs, there might be fewer accidents?
How do you know they don’t work? People don’t report when they decide not to undertake an hgv, due to the highly visible reminder, and not get squashed, do they!
Just remembered this from Friday. Man, if only he’d had a sticker, i wouldn’t have been such an idiot
How do you know they don’t work?
Show me proof that they do
People don’t report shit like the above either, bet you can bet its a million times more common than cyclists going up the inside
Today, driving to work after my last post. Busy A road, pulling away as the lights change, some idiot 'serious' cyclist goes past at speed on the inside, at the sort of distance that would've had the headcam warriors screaming punishment pass and posting videos on YouTube if the positions were reversed. Pointless, stupid exercise as the road climbs after the lights and I passed him (with a much wider margin than he gave me) almost immediately.
Two other cyclists, by the way, had seconds earlier done it the right way, riding down the right past the traffic waiting at the lights and moving to the front.
People don’t report shit like the above either, bet you can bet its a million times more common than cyclists going up the inside
Yeah but the signs meant for those that do ride up the inside. Not the person in the video who the sticker or sign has absolutely no baring on but they seem determined to be the victim of a sign here. News flash - it's not about you. It's about people who cycle up the inside.
Driver not looking is driver not looking. Don't be confusing two separate points.
Driver not looking is driver not looking. Don’t be confusing two separate points.
Or driver doesn't need to look. They have a sticker. The sticker doesn't absolve them of blame or magically make these dangerous vehicles safe.
Nobody said the sticker/led Sign absolved anyone if anything. Would you be happier if nobody did anything? Drivers and cyclist are all human. Accidents happen, anything we can sensibly do to mitigate accidents is surely a good thing? This includes driver training, cyclist training, encouragement of safe practice and lots of other things. Do you want to remove all the safety signs from all work places too?
Or driver doesn’t need to look
Willing to bet the driver doesn't even know that signs back there tbh . Shit drivers don't care they just drive shit.
But if it makes you feel better about your position crack on
Just remembered this from Friday.
A totally different circumstance to what this thread is about then?
