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

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!

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 - Member

That'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.