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

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.

Well, so far, no-one's come up with a better alternative (two words or less), so I'd say no.

"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?

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

stoffel - Member
...

But anyway as has been mentioned it's not just us disagreeing with you it's

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's

LCC, 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; 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".

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.

Agreed - but it wasn't an isolated incident though.

The Corsa vans look like two different fleets and there are another [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cyclists-stay-awesome-carvanlorry-stickers/page/3#post-6120341 ]four minivans on page 3[/url] that all look like different fleets too - plus reports from cyclists seeing the stickers on other vans, taxis and even private cars.

That's not good and it is easy to imagine that not all of those stickers were placed on those vehicles with our best interests at heart 🙁

blind alley

I preferred the previous spelling!

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.

Well LCC, Road Haulage Association, Freight Drivers Association all agree as well...

Road safety organisations have for several months been pressuring TfL to act on the stickers, described as "offensive" by London Cycling Campaign (LCC). Evidence has mounted that drivers of stickered vehicles have acted as though the stickers gave them the right to harass and endanger cyclists.

Even the Freight Transport Association and The Road Haulage Association have expressed frustration at the confusion caused by mixed messages and hostile reactions resulting from the stickers, according to LCC.

[url= http://road.cc/content/news/121876-transport-london-agrees-scrap-stay-back-stickers ]Original story from Roadcc[/url]

[quote=MoreCashThanDash ]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.

So you know better than the experts?

[quote=MoreCashThanDash ]reaction from a small minority of drivers

How many drivers need to use the stickers as an excuse to drive badly for it to be a problem?

as far as I am concerned they can stay in place until the better ones are made available.

I think they should be removed from vans and cars as soon as possible.

But I'm happy for them to stay on HGVs until suitable replacements are ready, which I believe is the plan.

Though [url= http://lcc.org.uk/articles/transport-for-london-says-cyclists-stay-back-stickers-to-go ]LCC point out[/url] that the old style warning stickers are still readily available too:

[img] ?1403781630[/img]

Do those pre-date the "stay back" ones graham? 😕

I thought they were an improvement.

Yep, according to LCC that one is "the previous warning agreed between TfL and LCC". 🙁

Or they could use this old classic, which is still better than Stay Back:

[img] [/img]

aracer - Member
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.

I think you're missing the point just a bit here, as neilwheel said it's about responsibility. Part of responsibility is repercussions for actions or in-actions which is where cyclists differ, injury or death seem to be the only consequence for bad cycling.......not very off putting to people who can't even see an indicating bus etc ! I do like the sound of the points, that lad who I used to see every day riding with no lights, on pavements, no handed and headphones on (all at the same time) being a great example for why !

I hate the stickers, just prove that people think cyclists are incompetent to ride on the roads, hence why I back the education and enforcement route.

Fine, if the experts aren't happy with it, I hadn't read that link properly before referring to "evidence".

I've clearly done so much riding on roads, in traffic, that I'm desensitised and/or unaware of all these drivers who are out to get me and/or us. 😐

[quote=ryan91 ]I think you're missing the point just a bit here

Well not really - I think it's actually you missing the point. Your previous post gave a list of some of the things car drivers complain about cyclists not having - things which would be impractical to implement, wouldn't provide any real benefit and would be detrimental to society as a whole by putting people off cycling. I assumed you were joking and simply completed the list. If you were being serious, do you need an explanation of why compulsory licensing and insurance for cyclists would be a bad thing?

Part of responsibility is repercussions for actions or in-actions which is where cyclists differ, injury or death seem to be the only consequence for bad cycling.......not very off putting to people who can't even see an indicating bus etc !

So you're seriously suggesting that points on a licence would be more of a deterrent than injury or death? 😯

"Stay Back" is meaningless. Especially as it is appearing on other vehicles which don't have big blindspots:

"Stay Back" isn't the best wording, which is the point of the OP. It's being redesigned, but in the meantime it's the best we've got

For cyclists from other countries, of which there are many in most cities (students, etc), "Stay Back" is quickly understandable without a phrase book (blind spots and undertakers will probably be in the phrase book section on health)

"If you can't see my mirrors..." doesn't work for the type of accidents that we're discussing. I need to be able to see you

Too wordy and too complex is easily misread, misunderstood or plain misleading

I agree that it shouldn't be on small vans and cars, it devalues the message that 20% of cycling fatalities in London involve LGVs, so be careful around large vehicles, but I don't see it as reducing a driver's responsibilities (or shifting blame to cyclists). If I made a sticker saying, "Stay Back, I'm not insured" I wouldn't expect the Courts to back me and make your insurance company pay when I drove into you

To summarise IMHO, "Stay Back" is the best we've got just now
A form of words/symbols that's agreed by most, understood by most and used appropriately is going to be some way in the distant future while cyclists are dying in the present

[quote=timba ]"Stay Back" isn't the best wording, which is the point of the OP. It's being redesigned, but in the meantime it's the best we've got

Well apart from the previous designs that is. Alternatively the best might be nothing at all.

For cyclists from other countries, of which there are many in most cities (students, etc), "Stay Back" is quickly understandable without a phrase book (blind spots and undertakers will probably be in the phrase book section on health)

Unfortunately it doesn't actually tell them anything useful.

I don't see it as reducing a driver's responsibilities (or shifting blame to cyclists). If I made a sticker saying, "Stay Back, I'm not insured" I wouldn't expect the Courts to back me and make your insurance company pay when I drove into you

Well clearly you're not the sort of driver for whom it is a problem - unfortunately not all drivers are like you.

Here's what we got in Scotland, funded with Government money and promoted by Cycling Scotland:
[img] [/img]
Cyclists know your place...

[img] [/img]

[i]Hey cyclist, don't be a DowDow!! and pass on the inside. Crow knows best! A scaffolders graffiti...[/i]

Apologies for not reading the whole thread.

I was really surprised when I first saw one of those 'cyclist stay away' stickers on the back of a local firms white vans the other week.
It got me quite wound up and am now deciding whether to get in touch with the company and tell them what a bad message it gives out to other drivers.
Just fuel for the cycle haters imo.

I can't help but wonder about the motivation behind van drivers etc, putting these stickers on their vehicles.
Do they really [i]care[/i] about cyclists enough to have it as a safety warning?
Or do they just have it as an "us & them" badge.
I wonder how many of them [b]always[/b] overtake cyclists in a correct and safe manner.
Maybe they're not the tossers I instantly think they are when I see the yellow sticker.

Maybe it's time for a sticker to go on the back of all cyclists - Drivers stay away.
We have one on our car 'give cyclists more room'. Which is not in your face or threatening, can't remember but there may even be a 'please' at the beginning.

will more stickers and signs make any difference?

don't see many cyclists in London pay attention to signs on the road (or the traffic lights / pedestrians crossings for that matter..)

[img] [/img]

or "no cycling" signs next to schools

[img] [/img]

or on the rear of large moving vehicles

[img] [/img]

mind you the motorists seem to have just as much trouble understanding road signs and markings

[img] [/img]

nice place to park for a couple of hours

[img] [/img]

Piss poor choice your top photograph. That's the sign that caused cyclists to go round the one-way system at Holborn where a cyclist was killed (and no doubt numerous others injured) cyclists who knew what the sign meant ignored it and those that didn't also ignored it in the interests of safety.
Its now a bus and cycle only lane as a result of pressure from cyclists and road safety groups, shame it took a death to make people see sense.

@MrSmith

Its not a "piss poor choice" because it demonstrates that people don't pay attention to signs, whatever the circumstances of that particular layout could be - I am well aware of the fatal accident and other serious RTC that occured at Holborn because I spent 14 months working in that area

There were also a number of RTC along that "no cycling" road (which as you pointed out has now changed to a cycle and bus lane) from cyclists coming into conflict with buses and oncoming traffic in the other direction