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

stoffel - Member

It 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?

'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.

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 - Member

some 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.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/06/26/transport-for-london-sees-sense-at-last-over-cyclists-stay-back-stickers/

[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 faustus

well 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.

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...