So to you the phrase "Stay Back" doesn't actually relate to anything about "Staying" or "Back," it just means some completely different stuff about not undertaking or passing unless it's safe?
It's imperfect. But I've yet to see anyone come up with anything better. Least of all you.
Actually hang on, I've just realised I only need to write "you're wrong"
That's ok. I'm not stippong you riding up the indside of big vehicles. Go ahead. Let us know how you get on.
aracer - but do you go out and get your wheels dirty in the argument? can you?
I'm in London, you could live on the Isle of Skye, for all I know.
I think splitting into camps just results in these pointless arguments about semantics.
I resent being labeled a STAY BACK "sticker zealot".
A short form of cycle training could be taught, to cover the most dangerous positions, but as things stand teaching the complete National Standard course is the only way for a cyclist to be instructed on how best to deal with complex junctions.
[quote=stoffel ]It's imperfect.
No, it's a lot worse than that, it's fundamentally useless, wrong and justifies bad driving.
That's ok. I'm not stippong you riding up the indside of big vehicles. Go ahead. Let us know how you get on.
For that you get one of these, congratulations!
[img] 
[/img]
FWIW I've commuted by bike in London.
That's ok. I'm not stippong you riding up the indside of big vehicles. Go ahead. Let us know how you get on.
But the sticker doesn't mention [i]anything[/i] about riding up the indside of big vehicles does it?
Especially when it's on a fricking taxi!
You might as well say "That's okay, feel free to ignore the sticker and douse yourself in petrol. Let us know how you get on"
Go on. I'm not stippong you.
stoffel - MemberThat's ok. I'm not stippong you riding up the indside of big vehicles
Not coincidentally, neither is a sign that just says "stay back". Especially when it's not on the back of a big vehicle.
It does for me. And many others. Fell free to ignore it.
No, it's a lot worse than that, it's fundamentally useless, wrong and justifies bad driving.
Stop pissing your knikers over this. It's an effective sign, and it's use raises iscussion and debate. Stop usingyour own biased interpretation of it to denigrate it's intention, and to suggest those who don't agee with you are wrong. As I sid, feel free o ignore the stickers if they offend you so much.
Even when it's on the back of a taxi? Going to answer that question at any point in this debate?
Though I'm also curious - if it wasn't for stickers saying "stay back" would you ride down the inside if large vehices?
Okay stoffel, so you're in stationary traffic, filtering up the inside on the cycle lane with plenty of room.
Ahead you see a taxi with a "Stay Back" sticker.
So what do you do?
So what do you do?
Rwad the sign. Consider it's meaning. jinterprt it in my own way. Act accordingly.
Not get killed ridng up the side of a left turnong vhicle.
Surely the answer to that is obvious, Graham, he doesn't ride up the inside of any big vehicles. Hopefully he won't ever be confused by encountering a big vehicle without a taxi with a sticker to help him.
stoffel - MemberIt does for me.
Yes, because you have the capacity to extrapolate a paragraph of guidance from 2 completely unrelated words.
The problem I think is that you already know what you should and shouldn't be doing. Try and see it from the point of view of people who don't. They can't take a 2 word sign and extract all the other stuff you already know from it.
As I said; feel free to ignor the stickers. Go and ride up thie insie of vehivles. Good licuk. Good nigthgt.
[quote=stoffel ]Rwad the sign. Consider it's meaning. [s]jinterprt it in my own way. Act accordingly. [/s] jignore it.
[quote=stoffel ]As I said; feel free to ignor the stickers. Go and ride up thie insie of vehivles. Good licuk. Good nigthgt.
Ah, but what if there were no stickers for you to ignore? Would you then ride up the inside of big vehicles?
Feel free to ignore the awkward questions.
As I said; feel free to ignor the stickers.
Thankyou I I will
Obviously I won't ride up the inside of large moving vehicles, because that's a bit daft, but luckily the sticker doesn't say anything about that.
Likewise I look forward to hearing about you being stuck in a traffic jam for five hours because the taxi in front of you had a "Stay Back" sticker so you couldn't overtake him.
The problem I think is that you already know what you should and shouldn't be doing. Try and see it from the point of view of people who don't. They can't take a 2 word sign and extract all the other stuff you already know from it.
Exactly! You [i]understand[/i] that "Stay Back" actually means [i]"do not undertake large moving vehicles because they might not see you and could turn left"[/i] because you already know about that risk.
But it's not the ones that know about the risk that need warning!
Simple fact, lorries have blind spots. The FTA card on p2 of this thread tells users to,"Be aware of blind spots"
If it's a blind spot, it's a blind spot
An "average" lorry has six mirrors to scan, the drivers are only human and with the best will in the world can't stop, get up, walk 2.5m across the cab, look down 2.5m, get back in the driver's seat, scan six mirrors and then turn left safe in the knowledge that a cyclist couldn't have got into a blind spot at 20mph
Any reminder to help prevent this situation is a good thing until reliable technology can be fitted to every lorry and, as a cyclist, I don't mind what the wording is
Then you have to look for that pedestrian somewhere in front and below, and that you're not about to prang that car parked at the junction, or take out the pedestrian that is stepping off the kerb perilously near to your rear nearside wheels...
I see that the Internet bullies GrahamS and araracer are out in force.
7/10 for collusion trolling though. Decent effort, but ultimately it's not very nice.
I had no idea those signs were supposed to imply a message about undertaking. I mean, not undertaking is common sense for me but that sign doesn't do anything to spread a message.
My interpretation (when I saw these signs out-and-about) was "Bike riders: You're annoying and I don't want to share the road with you. Stay out of my way and everything will be ok." It's passive-aggressive and it implies a hierarchy on the road, in which cyclists are somewhere between insects and wild mammals, way below dogs/pedestrians/cars/scooters/lorries/taxis/motorbikes/vans etc.
The main problem on roads isn't blind spots or red-light-jumpers etc. it's a fundental lack of respect for different road users. And this sign exacerbates that - therefore worsening a problem it was designed to improve. [i]That's[/i] why it's a terrible thing.
botanybay - Member
I see that the Internet bullies GrahamS and araracer are out in force.7/10 for collusion trolling though. Decent effort, but ultimately it's not very nice.
😐
Sorry if anyone thinks I'm bullying. I thought I was just debating a point 😐
Anyway... give us your lunch money fatty!
I think the signs are better than nothing on large vehicles but they are open to all sorts of interpretation so should be more succinct.
Stoffel quite rightly interprets them as advising him not to ride up the inside of large moving vehicles in case he gets crushed in their blind spot.
Other, less experienced, cyclists that don't understand what blind spots are might take that sign more literally and never pass a vehicle with one of those stickers.
Since these stickers are also being used on smaller vehicles I think it's fair to say that they could be being misinterpreted by other road users also. Why would a taxi or van driver need one?
as said you're reading a hell of a lot into two words, where 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.'
Danger: Blindspots. Do not undertake
Conveys to me "Be careful this vehicle has blind spots, undertaking is a bad idea", useful info I'm sure you'll agree.
"Stay back" just conveys "* off" to which the majority of cyclists are going to think "* you too" and pass the vehicle. Issuing demands rather than warnings is not going to educate nor win you respect. Having warning stickers on normal vehicle is just stupid, lazy drivers pushing the onus onto cyclists to stay out of their way instead of them concentrating on driving safely around vulnerable road users.
So as a warning exercise the Stay Back stickers have already failed...
and you can add all the cyclist bashing and second class road user thing on top if you're feeling militant.
but they don't, they give a very unhelpful "keep away from me"* message, no mention of blind spots or where they are, just a seemingly obstructive command, so useless apart from possibly annoying cyclists. Properly thought out signs, yeah go for it.Stoffel quite rightly interprets them as advising him not to ride up the inside of large moving vehicles in case he gets crushed in their blind spot.
*keeping away from lorries is probably all round a good idea but when they are driving up and down city/residential streets you can't avoid them, and when they are stuck in the terminable 3mph crawl of heavy commuter traffic what are you going to do?
How do you interpret this one?
[img] 
[/img]
Simple fact, lorries have blind spots. The FTA card on p2 of this thread tells users to,"Be aware of blind spots"If it's a blind spot, it's a blind spot
No one disputes this though timba. We [i]know[/i] lorries have blind spots, and we'd be quite happy with a sign warning about blindspots to spread that message. [i]"Be aware of blind spots"[/i] is fine.
"Stay Back" is meaningless. [b]Especially[/b] as it is appearing on other vehicles which [i]don't have[/i] big blindspots:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
?1403799623[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
:large[/img]
(That last guy seems to be using it because he has his right hand wing mirror folded in!)
stoffel - Membersome of us decide that arguing is pointless
Yeah, did really well there didn't you.
especially for graham and aracer
I see that the Internet bullies GrahamS and araracer are out in force.7/10 for collusion trolling though. Decent effort, but ultimately it's not very nice
Dont go on the independence thread is my advice
Neither of those two are even big hitters never mind bullies.
That is meant as compliment...I am not sure it worked that well 😳
the signs dont offer advice they just tell you to **** off and leave them alone. IMHO it is part of the demonisation of cyclists and minimising our right to be on the road. YOu dont see cars saying dont break the speed limit, park nicely, look out for others....nope just advice for us to stay away from them
You won't find me using the road.cc sticker, mainly because I object to the tiresome misappropriation and overuse of 'awesome'.
But cyclists are awesome faustus
well I am, dunno about you.
Neither of those two are even big hitters
Actually cynic-al admitted me to The Brotherhood recently for [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/down-at-the-bottom-of-an-oldforgotten-bridleway-i-find-this/page/3#post-6103777 ]my efforts on another thread[/url] (which unfortunately also involved stoffel).
But I've deliberately avoided mentioning children or their faces in this thread, so I think I'm okay.
There are more appropriate adjectives I think...;-)
GrahamS - Member"Stay Back" is meaningless. Especially as it is appearing on other vehicles which don't have big blindspots:
(That last guy seems to be using it because he has his right hand wing mirror folded in!)
You talk as if the drivers in your images have a choice about the signs. All quite clearly commercial vehicles that drivers will be employed to drive. The fleet operators in your examples have made the choice to display those signs - not the drivers.
I.N.R.A.T.S...but the frightened cynic in me can't help thinking, one might as well have a sticker in one's car saying;
[i]"Bike Thieves, potential booty in house! Keep being awesome!"[/i]
An A5 sized sticker on the back of your car? WTF.
I think they've got their sizing quite abit out.
If anyone can advise about things being too small it is certainly Hora- reference to bike frames not the beautiful organ
The fleet operators in your examples have made the choice to display those signs - not the drivers.
Which is why LCC, CTC, RDRF, RoadPeace, Bikeability and the London Boroughs Cycling Officers Group have campaigned for TfL to tell members of its Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme (FORS) to remove the stickers from vans and cars.
Which TfL finally agreed to yesterday.
[i]Which TfL finally agreed to yesterday.[/i]
But... hang on, surely the stickers are good? Aren't they stoffel?
My interpretation (when I saw these signs out-and-about) was "Bike riders: You're annoying and I don't want to share the road with you. Stay out of my way and everything will be ok." It's passive-aggressive and it implies a hierarchy on the road, in which cyclists are somewhere between insects and wild mammals, way below dogs/pedestrians/cars/scooters/lorries/taxis/motorbikes/vans etc.The main problem on roads isn't blind spots or red-light-jumpers etc. it's a fundental lack of respect for different road users. And this sign exacerbates that - therefore worsening a problem it was designed to improve. That's why it's a terrible thing.
Well done superficial, sums up my thoughts on the matter. 🙂
I would happily put one of the stay awesome stickers on my car if there was a version that wasn't so large, already have a 'Think Bike, Think Biker' one
Something maybe A6 size or the size of 2 credit cards...?
D0NK - Member
But cyclists are awesome faustuswell I am, dunno about you.
Well some are Awesome others are Awful. 🙂
These two are the best yet.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
If only these vehicles had some way to see cyclists on their left. Maybe one day we'll have the technology, but till then "Stay Back" and don't even think about undertaking. 😀
Yeah, did really well there didn't you.
I went for a bike ride. Other people continued arguing. When I came back many hours later, they were still here arguing, and had been doing so al day. 😆
It's all about comon sense. No, the signs aren't perfectly worded. No-one's yet come up with anything better. Are they antagonistic? Maybe, if you're insecure. I don't see them as being so, so maybe it's don to interpestation. But I welcome any move, even if it's not perfect, to try and make our roads safer for all. And other drivers can see the signs too, so it helps make everyone more aware. How can you knock that?
No, the signs aren't perfectly worded. No-one's yet come up with anything better.
These are the proposed alternatives:
[img] 
?1392910460[/img]
They seem much better to me.
http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/02/19/action-on-cyclists-stay-back-stickers/
But I welcome any move, even if it's not perfect, to try and make our roads safer for all.
If it saves one life then it's worth every penny...
...unless they could have made a clearer sign for exactly the same price and saved five lives!
Seems stoffel and I are in a minority on this, and are therefore wrong.
Grahams - those signs look better. Are they widely available to the fleet companies yet?
I suspect the overuse of these things has come from a legal standpoint - allows corporate lawyers to argue that when the van driver does a left hook on a cyclist he just overtook, that they warned the cyclist not to be there and therefore they can't sue for personal injury...
Bit like all the 'warning, hot water' nonsense on hot taps and 'caution, contains nuts' on packets of peanuts... it's not about honestly trying to help people avoid risk/injury, it's about corporates and others who can be sued, putting in a pre-emptive defence against silly people, and also to avoid taking proper responsibility for themselves...
I welcome any move, even if it's not perfect, to try and make our roads safer for all.
We all do but I do not see how being told to Back off is achieving this for anyone.
Why is it a help? Grahams S ones are informative and useful.
Back off is neither IMHO
You think a driver wont point at the sign when they do something stupid and illegal?
It took road.cc about a week to get a box of them made and delivered. So any sticker is 'available' really.
But the 'beware of passing on this side' ones are already in use (I saw one, in the provinces, on the back of an artic this morning). I think those ones are sensible. But putting a "STAY BACK" sticker on both rear sides of your Corsavan is taking the P.
Grahams - those signs look better. Are they widely available to the fleet companies yet?
They were the designs proposed by the CTC, LCC, RDRF, Roadpeace and Bikeability (around February this year), after they first raised concerns about these signs before Xmas.
According to [url= http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/06/26/transport-for-london-sees-sense-at-last-over-cyclists-stay-back-stickers/ ]the RDRF story[/url], TfL are currently looking to reword the "Stay Back" signs with input from those bodies and other cyclists.
So yeah, these signs or something like them will hopefully be distributed by TfL to fleet operators soon.
Which is good.
It's quite amazing the lengths people will go to, to try and stop the growth of cycling. I don't think there's anything else I do in life where there's so much resistance from so many people... we're a very conservative country really...how people can get in such a palaver about more people riding bikes is a bit mental...
Sorry, I can't help myself....
Do you genuinely believe that these badly worded stickers are part of some master plan to halt the growth of cycling? Really?
Seems a slightly hysterical and paranoid over reaction to me.
But my break is nearly over, so excuse me if i don't come back to defend my position.
[quote=MoreCashThanDash ]Seems stoffel and I are in a minority on this, and are therefore wrong.
Grahams - those signs look better.
It seems you don't even agree with stoffel then, as he thinks "stay back" is better because it's shorter and he's capable of extrapolating from it to not pass on the inside of large vehicles (even if the intended audience isn't).
I don't believe it's a conspiracy, but as discussed above I do believe that some drivers of smaller vehicles consider such a sign absolves them of their normal responsibilities, and for them it is an anti-cycling thing.
BTW stoffel, any answer to the difficult questions yet?
Do you genuinely believe that these badly worded stickers are part of some master plan to halt the growth of cycling? Really?
Not at all. There's just a generalised anti-cycling attitude from a lot of people at the moment, which wasn't there 10 years ago. Sometimes it pops up as stickers, sometimes as screaming at people riding a bike, sometimes as driving at them... every regular road cyclist has anecdotes about being given grief when they're just riding along...
Try getting involved in the comments section of newspaper story about cycling and see how much rabid, irrational anti-cycling frothing goes on...
[quote=Junkyard ]Neither of those two are even big hitters never mind bullies.
That is meant as compliment...I am not sure it worked that well
Taken in the intended manner, thanks, though slightly disappointed - are you sure I'm not even a medium hitter?
Not that I'm sure botanybay's post was worthy of any response at all, not given me and Graham are simply expressing an opinion he clearly doesn't agree with (and he could have included Northwind et al in his list), and that there's now only one obviously bullying post on this thread...
Not a conspiracy (and I can see how [i]on the surface[/i] it can seem a little melodramatic) but it does seem to be a symptom of our car obsessed society - passive aggressive bullying of minor group of road users. There are blind spots on many large vehicles and lots of cyclists don't know about them (or need reminding) and informative cautionary sign on the back of long vehicles is a good idea, "stay back" is not and putting the same stickers on normal cars is taking the piss and sounds like a precursor for a bit of victim blaming to me - "well the sticker told the cyclists to stay back but they kept on cycling so I had to run them over, not my fault guv' and I need my licence for my job to support my family etc etc"Do you genuinely believe that these badly worded stickers are part of some master plan to halt the growth of cycling? Really?
BTW stoffel, any answer to the difficult questions yet?
Well, so far, no-one's come up with a better alternative (two words or less), so I'd say no.
Well, so far, no-one's come up with a better alternative ([b]two words or less[/b]), so I'd say no.
Well that's a bit of a daft restriction.
"Undertaking = Danger" would (*nearly?) meet it though.
So in your opinion stoffel, the "Cyclists Stay Back" sign is superior to those alternatives above (one of which only uses two words)?
I'm a bit confused how "Cyclists Stay Back" manages to convey..
"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"
..[i]better[/i] than a graphic of a vehicle turning unexpectedly and crushing someone who has tried to overtake up the inside.
I'd be interested in presenting both to groups of non-cyclists and see what they reckon they mean. My feeling is that many of them will naively think that "Cyclists Stay Back" means that cyclists should stay back.
now you're just being sillyWell, so far, no-one's come up with a better alternative (two words or less), so I'd say no.
and oh look
Bails has already beaten whichever professional came up with stay back."Undertaking = Danger"
So in your opinion stoffel, the "Cyclists Stay Back" sign is superior to those alternatives above (one of which only uses two words)?
Yes. The first uses too many words, the second is too 'fussy', and might not be very clear if covered in dirt etc.
I'm a bit confused how "Cyclists Stay Back" manages to convey..
'Stay back if this vehicle is turning left, or you might be crushed on the inside'. Sometimes, you don't need all the words. It works for me anyway. Feel free to come up with something better.
I'm a bit confused how "Cyclists Stay Back" manages to convey..
'Stay back[s] if this vehicle is turning left, or you might be crushed on the inside'.[/s]
fify
several much better signs have already been posted, and any sign is going to suffer from being covered in dirt, words or pictures.
I don't think it really matters that stoffel thinks "Stay back" is the best sign.
Groups campainging for road safety have provided alternatives that they believe are better, and TFL agree that they're better too.
I'm not going to say that stoffel is on a deliberate wind-up, but if he was, it would look a lot like this.
GrahamS has already posted all my "favourite" examples of idiotic warning stickers. Except this one, which deserves some kind of award:
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I'd be interested in presenting both to groups of non-cyclists and see what they reckon they mean. My feeling is that many of them will naively think that "Cyclists Stay Back" means that cyclists should stay back.
I'm reminded of Family Guy where one of the characters is looking for a sign to warn people of the guard dog.
He says "Ah, here it is" and reaches towards a "Beware of the dog" sign, but then picks up the "One Way" sign next to it. "Because then people will know there's only one way they're leaving if they come in: In a body bag, after being killed by dog bites"
"Stay back" doesn't warn of the danger of being on the inside of a vehicle that may turn left without indication, or may swing out right and then move left. It just says "Don't get in front of me" but doesn't say why. So once you've decided that it's rubbish and just there for the convenience of the driver you might be tempted to ignore it. And if you don't know WHY it's there then you might choose to pass on the inside. If it says words to the effect of "be very wary of passing on the inside. The driver can't see you and may crush you" then you can choose to go past on the outside, or even pass on the left if there's safe space for you to do so. (Lorry in right turn filter lane and indicating right, for example) But if overtaking is so dangerous that "STAY BACK" is a sensible warning then surely no-one should be allowed to overtake anyone else.
Edit: As has been pointed out, Road.cc, CTC, LCC and TFL all agree that 'STAY BACK' isn't sensible, so not much point in continuing this 🙂
[quote=stoffel ]
BTW stoffel, any answer to the difficult questions yet?
Well, so far, no-one's come up with a better alternative (two words or less), so I'd say no.
You really are trolling aren't you? Well done, good effort. Though just in case you aren't here are the links to the difficult questions I gave before:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cyclists-stay-awesome-carvanlorry-stickers/page/3#post-6119832
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cyclists-stay-awesome-carvanlorry-stickers/page/3#post-6119842
"Undertaking = Danger"
So you want stickers on hearses now? So all undertaing is dangerous? So I can't undertake, ever?
I don't think it really matters that stoffel thinks "Stay back" is the best sign.
I said that it's not perfect, but that it's clear, concise and gets a message across. What would you prefer, 'careful now'?
You really are trolling aren't you?
No, but you apear to be. I've actually already answered your 'questions'. Go and have a read. Alternatively, go and ride your bike.
Editing going on.
Transport for London (TfL) has agreed to roll back the use of the controversial ‘Cyclists Stay Back’ stickers that have appeared on vehicles in London and beyond in the last year.Representatives of several road safety organisations met with Transport for London yesterday and TfL agreed to:
Ask the Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme (FORS) members to remove stickers from small vehicles
Replace stickers on buses with a new agreed message
Write to other fleet owners requesting they remove stickers
Agree new wording for stickers on large lorries
Issue guidance with the new stickers on their use
Create a TfL web page with advice about the stickers
So far, no new wording hs been agreed. Hence this (and I imagine many more) debate. So until then, why not keep the current stickers? they are at least raising awareness, as this threa proves.
Lots of peopleincluding me think some of the alternatives are better, including rdrf, CTC, LCC and TFL.
For a sign to be effective, it neeads to be very clear and legible at certain distances, in certain light conditions, etc. The more words/pictures you involve, the decrease in the effectivness of the sign. This is basic stuff. In the spilit seconds that can be the difference between an accident or not, which do you think might be more effective, 'stay back', or 'have you possible considered the dangers of undertaking on the inside of a vehicle, and that the driver may have blindspots and that you might not be visible?'
I woud prefer an internationally recognised symbol. That should post an exciting chalene for sign designers.
[quote=stoffel ]I've actually already answered your 'questions'.
You're wrong
I was going to respond to you but don't feed the trolls and all that.stoffel - Member
...
But anyway as has been mentioned it's not just us disagreeing with you it's
who also disagree with you.LCC, CTC, RDRF, RoadPeace, Bikeability and the London Boroughs Cycling Officers Group
And I shall be going for a ride at 4pm probably until the early hours of the morning so don't worry, I'm out enjoying myself when I'm not here disagreeing with you on vehicle signage 🙂
But anyway as has been mentioned it's not just us disagreeing with you it'sLCC, CTC, RDRF, RoadPeace, Bikeability and the London Boroughs Cycling Officers Group
who also disagree with you.
No; I think we're all in agreement that 'stay back' isn't perfect. And that a better alternative should be sought.
I said that it's not perfect, but that it's clear, concise and gets a message across
The message being, 'cyclist stay back you don't belong here'
Totally generic order having no reference to the danger faced or reason why one should 'stay back'
Maybe they should all be covered with 'Jesus loves you' bumper stickers, would be of as much use.
Well, so far, no-one's come up with a better alternative (two words or less), so I'd say no.
Okay, I've had a bit of a think and I've managed to come up with something that conveys all the same meaning as the "Stay Back" sign, but crucially it uses one less letter to make it [i]even easier[/i] to understand:
[img] 
[/img]
[quote=stoffel ]No; I think we're all in agreement that 'stay back' isn't perfect. And that a better alternative should be sought.
Whilst it's good of you to concede that (when at the start of this thread you were proclaiming what a good idea they were), I don't think there's much in the way of agreement. Not when all the other parties think the stickers are actually harmful and a better alternative would be nothing.
So until then, why not keep the current stickers? they are at least raising awareness
I'm happy for them to stay on trucks until an alternative is ready. Which I believe is the plan.
But how is a Keep Back sticker on the back of a Corsa raising any awareness about passing HGVs safely??
If anything it's doing the very opposite by diluting and twisting the meaning of the sticker.
[quote=stoffel ]So until then, why not keep the current stickers? they are at least raising awareness, as this threa proves.
Interestingly, it seems nobody agrees with you about keeping the current stickers - because as mentioned above they're actively harmful. Meanwhile I don't quite see how a discussion amongst those who (mostly) understand the issue is going to help with awareness for those who don't realise that going down the left of a lorry is a bad idea. Care to explain how exactly "stay back" is raising awareness with people who don't know what the issue is? No, thought not, as that's another difficult question you're ignoring.
For a sign to be effective, it neeads to be very clear and legible at certain distances, in certain light conditions, etc.
Don't forget about for non English speakers and when it's covered in dirt. Though I think we covered the issue that it wasn't particularly necessary to be clear from a distance...
no, they thought it was a **** of a long way from perfectNo; I think we're all in agreement that 'stay back' isn't perfect.
(1) [b]The ‘cyclists stay back’ wording is not acceptable for use on any vehicle[/b], because of its implication that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicle users. It also undermines the responsibility of drivers of such vehicles to use their nearside mirrors as required by the Highway Code in Rules 159,161,163, 169, 179, 180, 182, 184, and 202. Non-use of nearside mirrors is associated with a significant proportion of incidents where cyclists are hit by motor vehicles.
my own emphasis
From one of [url= http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/02/19/action-on-cyclists-stay-back-stickers/ ]grahams' links.[/url] along with a bunch of other reasons they didn't like the original signs.
There's nothing about my driving licence which gives me any authority over other road users to tell them how they should drive or whereabouts in the road they should be positioned - this is what;s wrong with the 'stay back' stickers - it suggests the driver has some kind of authority over the cyclist to tell them how to ride - when in fact they have no legal or moral right to take that position...
Something advisory letting cyclists know the limitations of the ability of the driver is something quite different...
I'm not 100% behind stoffel approach in this argument, but we have these stickers and as far as I am concerned they can stay in place until the better ones are made available.
The fact that some asshat fleet manager has stuck them on Corsa vans is a blind alley we probably didn't need to go down.
Still not understanding how these stay back stickers make some of you feel that they give tbe drivers the right to tell cyclists what to do. Seems to be some weird hybrid of paranoia, hysteria and insecurity based on a theoretical reaction from a small minority of drivers.
Hardly cyclists being "awesome".