[Closed] "Cyclists - Stay Awesome" car/van/lorry stickers

Oh, I [i]do[/i] like that. 🙂

soooo tempting to get a boat load and distribute them to all the cars in our area one night 🙂

Nice, but I believe the correct usage is 'keep being' , rather than 'stay', as per:

[img] [/img]

😛

I was thinking a covert trip to the bus depot might be in order 😀

I like the idea of a guerilla campaign of placing more friendly stickers over the existing victim-blaming things (especially with really tough glue), but that message walks straight into the 'smug cyclists' territory which will do nothing to win over the general public

You're right brooess. It'd be fun though 😀
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/120553-new-low-tfl-refuses-order-removal-cyclists-stay-back-stickers ]
TfL did say[/url] that it was "unfeasible" to remove the "Cyclists Stay Back" stickers from vehicles - so really we'd just be helping them out. 😉

Won't mean anything round here as the 'Stay Back' stickers are only in London. London is different.

Might be nice to have something to show allegiance to cyclists when driving though.

What if you are already awesomnez?

Stay that way..

I saw a "Cyclists: Stay Back" sticker on the back of a cement mixer in Gateshead the other day. So they are spreading. And more worringly I hear that they are appearing on vans now too!

On the bright side, TfL have just decided to scrap them for something a bit politer and issue guidance on what vehicles they should be applied to.

http://road.cc/content/news/121876-transport-london-agrees-scrap-stay-back-stickers

Time for rucksacks with "LORRIES: GIVE ME ROOM YOU ****S"

The bits about drivers using the stickers as an excuse to drive without due care and attention is more than a little worrying... as in, given any excuse for it, some drivers will deliberately stop caring about anyone else on the road...

Glad the campaigners have been able to make some quick progress on this. Anecdotally there's more and more people riding these days and with Wiggle potentially about to float on the stockmarket and Halfords making increased profits from cycling, it suggests more and more new riders are coming into the roads - so if there was ever a time when drivers needed to drive with a sense of responsibility, this is it.

I still think a campaign of direct action with more appropriately worded stickers being placed over these things, would be most effective. Maybe something like "I'm probably not looking, or fiddling with my phone and don't really give a damn about killing you, so I'd steer clear if I were you" That's basically the mindset I have when I ride... 😕

The stay back stickers are a bloody good idea, and remind cyclists of the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles. I don't think some smug arsey 'retaliation' is necessary or at all clever. Just antagonistic. Plus it's also possibly criminal damage. Yay; let's encourage illegal activity. That'll win the irate drivers over. 🙄

Won't mean anything round here as the 'Stay Back' stickers are only in London.

No they're not. I've seen quite a few round our way (W. Yorks), mostly on scratty white vans and the like until recently, but our local bus company has started putting similar ones on their buses now too.

Alright, London and the Norf. 😉

The stay back stickers are a bloody good idea, and remind cyclists of the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles. I don't think some smug arsey 'retaliation' is necessary or at all clever. Just antagonistic. Plus it's also possibly criminal damage. Yay; let's encourage illegal activity. That'll win the irate drivers over.

Did you read the article?
Why are the driver's "irate"?
Because they think we're second class road users and that sticker reinforces the view. 🙄

The stay back stickers are a bloody good idea, and remind cyclists of the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles. I don't think some smug arsey 'retaliation' is necessary or at all clever.

Agreed.

The stay back stickers are a bloody good idea, and remind cyclists of the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles.

Nothing wrong with signs to remind novice cyclists that going up the inside of an HGV is a bad idea.

But these ones are worded to suggest cyclists have no right to be there and should get the hell out of the way. Why word it [i]"Cyclists: Stay Back"[/i] rather than [i]"Cyclists: Please Overtake With Care"[/i] or just [i]"Beware Of My Blindspots. Don't Undertake"[/i]?

Plus the "Stay Back" stickers have been applied to buses, vans and cars - all of which can see cyclists just fine and just want us to go away.

I'm no fan of the busy and misleading design for the National Express "blindspot" stickers, but at least they manage not to be aggressive or suggest we shouldn't be on the road:

[img] [/img]

Because they think we're second class road users and that sticker reinforces the view.

No; the stickers alert cyclists of the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles. In heavy urban traffic, drivers cannot be expected to be aware of what's happening up the inside of their vehicles, especially when they're supposed to be looking ahead. You are not suposed tob e overtaing a vehicle on the inside anyway, unless you have a whole clear lane, and even on a cycle lane, you should be very careful. Arguing about 'second class road users is great when you're squashed.

Or maybe we should letDarwimism take over?

stoffel, no-one's got any issue with warning cyclists about the dangers of being on the inside of big vehicles, in their blind spot.

That's not what's being discussed here. Have another read.

The stay back stickers are a bloody good idea, and remind cyclists of the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles.

The "stay back" one's don't. They don't warn, they don't specify, they don't educate, they don't remind. They instruct, with no reasons.

I overtook 153 vehicles on my 6 mile ride to work the other day. Not an unsual morning. Should I "stay back" behind the first one with a sticker?

You are not suposed tob e overtaing a vehicle on the inside anyway,

So why are cycle lanes on the left hand side of the lane then? If we can't undertake stationary traffic there's no point cycling is there? We'll either sit in the queue getting carbon monoxide poisoning or might as well just drive!

Don't get me wrong, as a cyclist I'm very well aware of my vulnerability and take great care not to put myself at risk, but vehicle drivers have a great responsibility not to kill and injure people just because they can't be bothered looking properly... these stickers are being used as a get-out according to the campaigning organisations.

Personally I think education and training sessions (for all road users) would be the best option...

They're cool. I needed something to replace the No biking, no skateboarding, no fun Charlie the Bikemonger sticker that went with my old van, and that's just the job.

...drivers cannot be expected to be aware of what's happening up the inside of their vehicles, especially when they're supposed to be looking ahead.

If they are turning towards the left, then yes they [i]should[/i] be expected to check their mirrors carefully and be aware of what's happening on their inside.

That's just basic look-where-you-are-going driving.

(likewise, cyclists on the inside of vehicles should be prepared for muppets that don't check or signal before moving, but then the same applies when you are on the outside of a vehicle too)

You are not supposed to be overtaking a vehicle on the inside anyway, unless you have a whole clear lane

[i]"Not supposed to"[/i] according to who?

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

Was always told by my driving instructor when pulling away to check [b]both[/b] mrrors sweeping from the left to right before checking the blind spot. When moving, check the inside mirror relative to your next manoeuvre after checking the rear view mirror.

So with this in mind, why would you even need this sticker on a car or van ? For the same reason people would rather cut you up on a left turn, or don't indicate, or force an overtake instead of waiting for the opposite side to clear.....laziness and no repercussions for their actions. Same as them cyclists on pavements, or those cutting red lights etc.

Well said nedrapier.

"Stay Back" is a meaningless command that educates no one, gives no indication of the danger, and is impractical to obey.

Free from halfords /AA
Ideal for vans and lorry wing mirrors as a reminder. [img]http:// [URL= http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/vwempi/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-06/20140626_165032_RichtoneHDR.jp g" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/vwempi/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-06/20140626_165032_RichtoneHDR.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL][/img]

So why are cycle lanes on the left hand side of the lane then? If we can't undertake stationary traffic there's no point cycling is there? We'll either sit in the queue getting carbon monoxide poisoning or might as well just drive!

Cycle lane is on the left to allow other road users to pass you.
You dont need to undertake, overtake if its safer.

Also, who said cycling had to be faster? this is my issue with many of the cycle campaigners, the attitude of;

'the road should be modified to make it quicker to cycle : we should be able to run red lights : junctions should give priority to cyclists not cars : road space should be taken from cars to make it harder to drive'

^thats not made up by the way, thats the opinion of Newcastle Cycle Campaign.

'the road should be modified to make it quicker to cycle : we should be able to run red lights : junctions should give priority to cyclists not cars : road space should be taken from cars to make it harder to drive'

^thats not made up by the way, thats the opinion of Newcastle Cycle Campaign.

Link?

All that sounds pretty sensible to me, apart from the "should be able to run red lights" (though I suspect you're misinterpreting that one). Those are the things you do if you want to encourage cycling and make it safe.

(I'm an active member of that campaign by the way)

In heavy urban traffic, drivers cannot be expected to be aware of what's happening up the inside of their vehicles, especially when they're supposed to be looking ahead.

I really, really, really hope you don't have a driving licence.

road space should be taken from cars to make it harder to drive'

why not? Tens of thousands in the UK are dying each year from obesity and pollution-related diseases, and before they die, they cost £billions in healthcare, at a time when NHS is under huge cost pressure from an ageing population...

Let alone the noise pollution...

Cars only came into mass usage in the 1950's, and they have a massively negative impact on society, which is why they're taxed (so drivers (me included) can make a contribution towards the costs they impose on the everyone else...

I'm not anti-car (I have one) but I am anti this excessive and careless use of the things which people seem to want to insist on, despite massive, massive damage to our daily quality of life. Nothing wrong with change you know 😯

What's wrong with trying to warn cyclists not to be killed by a 10 tone truck by riding up the inside?

What's wrong with trying to warn cyclists not to be killed by a 10 tone truck by riding up the inside?

Nothing.

But that Stay Back sticker doesn't do that though does it?

[img] [/img]

Especially when it's on the back of a taxi.

It tells them to stay back. it says it clearly, up there, in that picture above. Staying back is safe, riding up the inside isn't in many cases. Especially when taxis are involved.

Given the average taxi's ability to stop abruptly without signalling, being immediately behind a taxi at any sort of speed is just asking for trouble.

It tells them to stay back. it says it clearly, up there, in that picture above. Staying back is safe

I see.

Should we avoid passing every single vehicle on the road, or only the ones with this sticker on them?

[img] [/img]
[i]Stay back you fool![/i]

Staying back is safe, riding up the inside isn't in many cases.

Being sat at my desk is safer than spending an extra hour on the road. Breathing fresh air is safer than sitting behind someone's exhaust pipe for 90 minutes. And I like my sleep, and I like my home.

So I'm going to carry on moving through traffic, on both sides, wherever's safe. I'm going to be especially careful round big things, and I'm not going to "Stay Back" because a sticker tells me to.

Keep seeing the 'Stay Back' ones on taxis and light courier vans in London - two groups of road users who often can't bothered to check their mirrors or indicate before they pull over.

On a tipper truck or a long vehicle its perfectly sensible to have a warning about blind spots etc, but saying 'stay back' on a normal vehicle is essentially just demanding that other users accord you special rights simply because you're too lazy to hold up your end of the social contract and mirror/signal before you maneuver.

I like the road.cc ones better

On the right side of the local scrappys van reads
"safe side" on the left "suicide".

Written by fingers on filth.

Jesus H Christ on a chuffing bike we spend SO much time and energy on petty squabbles with each other.

Yes, the "Stay Back" sign is badly worded, but it doesn't say you can't ever go past the vehicle in front.

It's a (poorly worded) warning that it can be dangerous to go up the inside of vehicles. Because sometimes the driver may not see you, either through carelessness, ignorance, or because the cyclist is zipping around chopping and changing lanes because they think they have some God given right to go faster than the other traffic just because they are on a sodding bike.

If that badly worded sign makes just one cyclist pause and think and double check that it is safe before making what would have been their last ever manoeuvre, I'm all in favour of it.

And, when we have all climbed down off our high dandy horses, perhaps we could work [i]together[/i] to try and improve training for riders and drivers and signage and road layouts etc that will help us all get on with our lives more safely.

MoreCashThanDash - Member

It's a (poorly worded) warning that it can be dangerous to go up the inside of vehicles.

It isn't, though.

I'm not surprised that more and more fleet operators have the 'stay back' signs on the back of their vehicles. I'm in the south east and see them on all sorts of smaller commercial vehicles now.

I honestly don't think they are being used as an excuse for poor driving though. The majority I see have been placed on vehicles owned by very large companies and I think their health and safety departments have simply jumped on the 'cyclists are at risk from our vehicles' band wagon with these signs without too much thought into the actual message.

The signs tick the 'we're doing our bit' box and I think it shows that fleet operators are trying to be more responsible. No business wants a cyclist's death on its hands and I'd hope that some awareness training for the drivers went hand in hand with the new stickers.

For what it's worth the bin lorries that come into work have "stay away from this vehicle at all times" or words to that effect on them by the cabs - how the hell does the driver get in then?!

Every day I see people doing very stupid things riding in London.

Signs like these need to be simple, obvious and direct to get their attention.

I hope that no one on here needs to be told that going up the inside of a tipper truck at a junction is a daft thing to do.

These signs are poor, and the main issue I think, is that they further enable the territorial pissing contest attitude of many commercial drivers.

I'm happy to guerrilla fly post a few vehicles, but don't cover up the originals, not until a better solution is found.

Are all pedants incapable of grasping nuance? Or are trolls so busy blinking when they come out from under the bridge that they can't see the obvious?

It "can" be dangerous to go up the inside of vehicles. Some people have died whilst doing so. I'm not saying that it was their fault, I'm saying that it "might" be dangerous, and you should take care if you do it.

The alternative is to do away with any advice and let Darwin have his way so we are only left with careful and/or lucky cyclists.

It "can" be dangerous to go up the inside of vehicles. Some people have died whilst doing so. I'm not saying that it was their fault, I'm saying that it "might" be dangerous, and you should take care if you do it.

The alternative is a better sign, like the one originally agreed upon by LCC and TfL:

[img] [/img]

MoreCashThanDash - Member

Are all pedants incapable of grasping nuance?

I'm pedantic and nuanced enough to see that this is neither pedantry or nuance- it's a sticker that says one thing, that you're saying says something different.

And claiming nuance in a post that says "The alternative is to do away with any advice" is genius.

Yes, that ^ works.

When you see riders, like the one above, doing stupid crap, multiple times per day, it is so stressful to be driving a large vehicle in a busy city.

If you are driving a bus and the cargo are causing issues, it would not be hard to miss that guy.

That RHA sign is the same as the ones the FTA supply too. Just had a look and it's good to see they are also selling driver cards like this:

[URL= http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d187/Inferno182/5423_zpse245d241.jp g" target="_blank">http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d187/Inferno182/5423_zpse245d241.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Unfortunately, stupidity like in that video happens all the time and without any punishment. A cycling CBT, points added to driving licence and mandatory 3rd party insurance should be in place just so when such a muppet clatters up somebody's nearside doing something like that, it isn't left for others to pay for their idiocy !

Mandatory insurance? As a 23 yr old male with 5 bikes I'd be bankrupted!

Cycling is supposed to equate to freedom, in my mind anyway.

This does not mean cyclists can avoid responsibility either.

National standard for cycle training is in place in many schools and offered to adults by councils.

Cycle training should be compulsory in the driving test.

I hope that no one on here needs to be told that going up the inside of a tipper truck at a junction is a daft thing to do.

The general cycling public appear to need to be told, by my observation this week...

Jesus H Christ on a chuffing bike we spend SO much time and energy on petty squabbles with each other.

some of us decide that arguing is pointless so go out for a bike ride instead. 😉

So, some of you feel threatened by 'stay back'. What do you want, some 20,000 word polemic on why ging up the inside of a large vehicle with poor visibility isn't a good iea? 'Stay back' is concise and has impact. Makes you stop and thing. And that's the whole ****ing point. how many of you maoning about how it makes syclists 'seconf class citizens' or whatber bullsht actually ride a bike in London?

brooess - Member
"I hope that no one on here [b](THIS FORUM)[/b] needs to be told that going up the inside of a tipper truck at a junction is a daft thing to do."

The general cycling public appear to need to be told, by my observation this week...

I think we agree on that.

It would be good to present a unified front from STW and all the other groups who have an interest on the subject.

[quote=stoffel ]So, some of you feel threatened by 'stay back'.

Yes, because such stickers don't say anything about what the danger actually is, and are being used on vehicles which aren't large and don't have any problem with visibility - the only logical explanation for such use is that drivers believe such a sticker absolves them from their responsibilities.

Is that really so hard to understand?

[quote=ryan91 ]A cycling CBT, points added to driving licence and mandatory 3rd party insurance should be in place just so when such a muppet clatters up somebody's nearside doing something like that, it isn't left for others to pay for their idiocy !

Don't forget compulsory helmet and hi-viz, and making cyclists pay road tax. Presumably if you tot up enough points you also get banned from cycling. Such measures would doubtless help a lot.

stoffel - Member

So, some of you feel threatened by 'stay back'. What do you want, some 20,000 word polemic on why ging up the inside of a large vehicle with poor visibility isn't a good iea? 'Stay back' is concise and has impact.

Something like Lifer's 9 word sign would be grand, I'm not sure what the other 19,991 words might be.

Also I'm kinda struggling to see how putting this sign on small vehicles helps safety around large vehicles.

Something like Lifer's 9 word sign would be grand

Takes longer to red than 'stay back'. And that's the whole point; get the message acros as simply as possible. So far, no-ones come up with anything better.

the only logical explanation for such use is that drivers believe such a sticker absolves them from their responsibilities.

Surey that's just your intepretation. I don't think they do that at all. i welcome the fact that drivers are having the foretohught to actually put the stickers on in the forst place.

Something much better, both signage and education, is needed but for now the "STAY BACK" sign seems to be the best on offer.

[quote=stoffel ]Takes longer to red than 'stay back'. And that's the whole point; get the message acros as simply as possible. So far, no-ones come up with anything better.

How about "Stay". That takes less time to read, and is just as good at getting the correct message across. Or maybe just "No" to save on letters.

Surey that's just your intepretation. I don't think they do that at all. i welcome the fact that drivers are having the foretohught to actually put the stickers on in the forst place.

On small vehicles with no visibility problem where the issue doesn't apply? Why do you think drivers of such vehicles use the stickers?

stoffel - Member

Takes longer to red than 'stay back'.

Fractionally longer, and is still very fast to read. But it communicates a useful message. You say

stoffel - Member

get the message across as simply as possible.

But in truth, it's not getting the message across at all.

If you want a sign that transmits a message about passing safely, you should make one. "Stay back" is not a message about passing safely, or not passing up the inside of a large vehicle (doubly so when it's on a small vehicle, something people seem to keep missing). It's just telling people to stay back.

So lets take your target audience, the naive/unaware cyclist. They see a sign that says "stay back" but they think they can pass safely, and they want to pass of course, so what do they do? They ignore it, it's telling them to do one specific thing and they think it's daft or undesirable. But they see a sign that says "Beware of passing this vehicle on the inside", or another popular one, "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you" then they're far more likely to heed it, and far more likely to learn something useful.

aracer - Member
Presumably if you tot up enough points you also get banned from cycling.

The Muppet in the video [i]should[/i] be banned.

[quote=neilwheel ]Something much better, both signage and education, is needed but for now the "STAY BACK" sign seems to be the best on offer.

Well apart from those agreed by LCC or other cycling organisations that is.

Gosh, this is so like the helmet debate, with the sticker zealots reckoning that anything is good and completely ignoring any downsides.

[quote=bruceonabike ]The Muppet in the video should be banned.

Made to drive instead, or do you think he'd be safe walking?

But in truth, it's not getting the message across at all.

It is. Very effectively. Quite a number of my firends have noticced the stickers, cyclist an non-cyclists. And they're provoking comment and discussion. Exactly what's happening here. So i'd say they're extremely effective.

Takes longer to red than 'stay back'. And that's the whole point; get the message across as simply as possible. So far, no-ones come up with anything better.

They could just use "F*** off" that'd save a letter and be just as meaningful.

Or just maybe they could succinctly explain the danger instead. Something like "Danger: Blindspots. Do not undertake" would be fine.

Something like "Danger: Blindspots. Do not undertake" would be fine.

'Ecise me, I don't drive a car, and I don'tunderstand what 'blindspots' means. Can you explain it to me'?

It is. Very effectively. Quite a number of my firends have noticced the stickers, cyclist an non-cyclists.

Okay - so ask them what "Stay Back" means then.

Because I'm struggling to see how to read between the lines and get the message: [i]"I have large blindspots. Take extreme care undertaking me as I might not see you. You're probably better off overtaking unless I'm completely stationary. Thanks"[/i]

Okay - so ask them what "Stay Back" means then.

Simple Stay bacl. 🙄

So you think that's the important message? Can I just check whether you've read any of the other posts on this thread?

aracer -
neilwheel » Something much better, both signage and education, is needed but for now the "STAY BACK" sign seems to be the best on offer.
Well apart from those agreed by LCC or other cycling organisations that is.

Gosh, this is so like the helmet debate, with the sticker zealots reckoning that anything is good and completely ignoring any downsides.

Do you put your wheels where your mouth is?

Don't see the comparison myself, I ride everyday in London, without a helmet, still, lost for words...............

'Ecise me, I don't drive a car, and I don'tunderstand what 'blindspots' means. Can you explain it to me'?

You have eyes though, yes? And those eyes have blindspots. In fact I think all invertebrate eyes have blindspots.

So you're killer argument is that if we have to give dictionary definitions and encyclopaedic explanations of everyday English phrases then the signs will take too long to read?

Okay. But then how are people supposed to understand the temporal concept of "Stay" and the abstract relativist concept of "Back"??

<whoosh> for neilwheel - nothing to do with your opinion on helmets, I was simply comparing debating tactics.

So you think that's the important message?

I read it as:

'This vehicle may turn unexpectedly. You may be crusehed as a result. It's probably a good idea you don't try to overtake up in the indide, and stay back until you are sure it's safe to do otherwise.'

Works for me, andmany others. Don't know why it don'twork for you.

aracer - Member
bruceonabike » The Muppet in the video should be banned.
Made to drive instead, or do you think he'd be safe walking?

Banned from the road altogether as he/she clearly has no road sense and when the inevitable happens some poor sod will have to live with the knowledge that they killed someone. Anyway I only said [i]should[/i] and I know it would be quite impractical. Mores the pity.

'This vehicle may turn unexpectedly. You may be crusehed as a result. It's probably a good idea you don't try to overtake up in the indide, and stay back until you are sure it's safe to do otherwise

Wow you're really getting a lot from that. So to you the phrase "Stay Back" doesn't actually relate to anything about "Staying" or "Back," it just means some completely different poorly spelt stuff about not undertaking or passing unless it's safe?

Wouldn't it be simpler to have a sign saying "Pass with care. Do not undertake" ?

[quote=stoffel ]I read it as:
'This vehicle may turn unexpectedly. You may be crusehed as a result. It's probably a good idea you don't try to overtake up in the indide, and stay back until you are sure it's safe to do otherwise.'

[s]So is that the interpretation of all your cyclist and non-cyclist friends? Because up there you were suggesting their interpretation was "stay bacl" (sic) How about the target market of those who don't actually realise the danger of riding up the inside - do you think they'll interpret it in that way?

Oh, and you're still ignoring the question of what the point is of putting the sticker on small vehicles with good visibility which don't need to make wide turns.[/s]

Actually hang on, I've just realised I only need to write "you're wrong" given how good you are at extrapolating from a two word phrase.

I only need to write "you're wrong" given how good you are at extrapolating from a two word phrase.

Albatross Conglomerate!