- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cyclists stay back sticker (CC licensed image by happy days photos and art:Flickr)Cyclists’ organisations unite against ‘stay back’ stickers
Cycling and road safety organisations have called on Transport for London to remove ‘Cyclists Stay Back’ stickers from its vehicles and to tell operators such as Hackney cab owners not to attach them.
The demand comes in a joint statement from the Road Danger Reduction Forum, CTC, London Cycling Campaign, RoadPeace and the Association of Bikeability Schemes.
The stickers have angered many cyclists who see them as putting responsibility for cycling safety on the victims and potential victims of driver carelessness, and as implying that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicles.
Those two points make up the first of the organisations’ comments about the ‘stay back stickers’, which in full are:
-
The ‘cyclists stay back’ wording is not acceptable for use on any vehicle, 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. - It is not appropriate to have stickers aimed at cyclists on the back of any vehicle smaller than a heavy goods vehicle.
- Stickers are appropriate on the rear of high-cab lorries, because of these vehicles’ blind areas, and the resultant danger to other road users.
- Stickers on lorries should be worded as warnings rather than commands, with appropriate graphics. A suitable graphic [below] is attached.
The organisations have therefore called for the stickers to be removed from all vehicles except high-cab lorries by the end of March, and for more appropriate stickers to be designed for use on London buses and to replace the stickers currently on high-cab lorries.
Perhaps more importantly, the five bodies have taken the opportunity to reiterate what they see as a far better long-term solution to the problem of cyclist deaths and serious injuries in London caused by HGVs. Calling stickers, “literally, a sticking-plaster solution”, the five groups have called for TfL to promote the use of lorries that do not have blind spots around the cab, to engineer the highway to reduce potential conflict, and to ensure drivers are trained to check their mirrors properly when turning or changing lane.
The demands in full are:
- FORS [Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme] to instruct their members to remove ‘cyclists stay back’ stickers from all vehicles except high-cab heavy goods vehicles, by the end of March.
- London Buses to instruct operators to remove ‘cyclists stay back’ stickers from all buses, until such time as a more appropriate design and wording is agreed with cycling organisations, by the end of March.
- TfL to inform all other vehicle operators, such as Hackney carriages (London Taxi Drivers Association etc.) that TfL do not want such stickers to be used on their vehicles, by the end of March.
- TfL to develop and produce a more appropriate sticker for heavy goods vehicles, similar to the one attached to this statement, and agree the design and wording with cycling organisations, by the end of May.
- TfL to supply the new sticker to freight operators, with instructions only to use it on high-cab lorries. This should be in widespread use by the end of August, with no ‘cyclists stay back’ stickers remaining after this date.
- TfL to invest in designing and promoting use of lorries that do not have blind spots around the cab. Stickers are, literally, a sticking-plaster solution. The long-term solution includes designing out the source of the danger by engineering lorries to reduce or eliminate the possibility of cyclists and pedestrians being crushed in collisions with them, engineering the highway to reduce potential conflict, eliminating lorry driver “blind spots”, and by training drivers to check their mirrors properly when turning or changing lane.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Geoff Ingram 3 sec ago
Back in the 70's and 80's I was doing quite physical work in an environment of over 40ºC for hours at a time, sweating like a herd of pigs.The...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 55 min ago
Well, I don't have any insight into how all consuming being a professional cyclist is and so how much you have to put your faith in your advisors,...
- roboito 2 hours 31 min ago
I'm restoring mine, I never did anything like this before, skill levels building as I go. It'll take years to get them all finished. The ones I've...
- Hirsute 2 hours 35 min ago
In the comments "Was it due to icy conditions? "
- chrisonabike 2 hours 41 min ago
Shurely "Place with large concentrations of bikes (and presumably thriving second hand market) in bike theft hotspot shock"?...
- Hirsute 2 hours 42 min ago
Finding solutions to US school drop off: Our school has 2 VIP parking spots they auction off at their fundraiser. So, I got one 😁 - and made it...
- slc 5 hours 17 min ago
Marsh lane was unchanged on Friday - I don't think the contractors have been back since the protest.
- chrisonabike 5 hours 52 min ago
She did say (in comment) they'd suggested to the council to make this access and emergency vehicles only and the council said no....
- S.E. 22 hours 53 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
Add new comment
91 comments
True, some of those road markings seem like traps. I learned the hard way to ignore the cycle lanes that tell you to go right across the mouth of side-roads, when I got the incomplete-overtake-sideswipe treatment as a result of obeying one such.
But still, it seems fair enough for those vehicles where the driver genuinely can't see you there to have a reminder not to go up the left. If only to counteract those misleading road markings. If it spreads to smaller vehicles where the driver ought to be able to use their eyes then it just becomes pre-emptive victim-blaming. (I guess with HGVs you also need to be very wary about going up the right as well.)
yes, it should but what would you propose AyBee.
By the interpretation of the sticker...if you stay behind a motorised vehicle you would be safe.
Ok, lets see..i go out on my bike, in helmets and arm guards etc...on my two wheeled scaffold frame....following a car in gentle flow of traffic.
Now traffic picks up speed the car behind me is getting impatient...the road is only 1 lane, nothing I can do...how does stay behind the car makes me safe...what can i do to make the situation safe stop short of getting off my bike and hopping on to a bus or train?
now also consider this, i am following a car...vision of the road ahead is impaired...therefore I cannot foresee what is infront of the car ahead. I maintain a good travelling distance. For whatever reason, the car brakes suddenly. I cannot slow down fast enough. now again I have made all the necessary precautions and taken steps to make the situation as safe as possible. but yet, i will be seriously injured in this situation.
I think Aybee you need to realise cyclists are vulnerable road users, therefore more responsibilities lies on those in cars/vans/trucks. To a more interesting extent, I think cyclists are more vulnerable than pedestrians, I have seen a number of accidents where a pedestrain crosses the road blind and t-bones a cyclist. the pedestrian just get knocked back or falls forward and land on the cyclist. where the cyclist often flies off the bike or at least falls heavily with all sorts of cuts and bruises.
Yes you should do what you can to be as safe as you can be. But all road users rely to a greater or lesser extent on all the other road users to keep them safe. We all have a duty of care.
Motorists can kill each other and regularly do. The only difference is vulnerability. HGV drivers have more training and a more difficult test and they have a much higher duty of care because of the potential for damage that their vehicle has. And on downwards. The bits of that continuum we talk about on here are when it gets to the relationship between cyclists and motorists. And yes motorists owe cyclists a duty of care. And yes cyclists on say a mixed use path owe pedestrians a duty of care.
Absolutely.
I think you are missing the point. by allowing such a sticker and the way the language is used, the driver can deny all responsibilities even if the driver was completely neglegent or was dangerous.
Though I don't agree with ricky 1980 this is not true. You cannot just write disclaimers on your vehicle and claim you aren't liable. Your liability is decided by statute law not by you.
If it helps this also goes for any other walk of life where you see disclaimers. You know that bit that follows them on many product disclaimers "this does not affect your statutory rights". Well of course it doesn't.
Even dangerous sports. You know those disclaimers that say you are doint it at your own risk. Well they can wave one of those all the way court. You might have signed it in blood. It won't matter if they are negligent in any way. They can write what they like on their vehicles, but Parliament makes the law, not EZ Signs Ltd or the odd van driver.
Likewise Giff, when approaching a pinch point I'll shoulder check, move out a bit and hold my right arm out low with the palm facing back to instruct traffic behind that I want them to wait until I'm through.
It is surprisingly effective, and doesn't seem to bother most drivers at all. Some even seem to appreciate it!
Likewise Giff, when approaching a pinch point I'll shoulder check, move out a bit and hold my right arm out low with the palm facing back to instruct traffic behind that I want them to wait until I'm through.
It is surprisingly effective, and doesn't seem to bother most drivers at all. Some even seem to appreciate it!
Fine for high cab vehicles. In fact, a command is preferable.
On anything smaller it is completely inappropriate.
I have seen a chap with a small transit van who has put one of the "cyclists do not ride up the left of this vehicle" signs on the back door. He seems to think this is a get out of jail card. I must remember to get a "sales men - do not knock on my door or I will will stab you and then set you alight with petrol" sign as apparently the sign makes it OK to kill people who annoy us.
I wonder whether there could be an unintended (?) consequence of these stickers with respect to liability and damages in event of a collision: could a lawyer for a driver argue for reduced liability and compensation payable if the vehicle had a "stay back" sticker and the cyclist had "ignored it".
i.e. what basis do these stickers have in law?
None I would assume. It is yet another pointless band aid to deal with cyclist safety rather than deal with the real issues of infrastructure in cities; charges, and sentencing within the court system. I would never filter down the inside of traffic personally nor would I encourage it. Either sit in the flow of traffic if near the junction or overtake until you need to pull back across. It is up to us to pass on our skills to those who are new to the whole commuting/ urban experience
Looking at these a completely different way.
Are these stickers the new "Baby/Princess/Tw*t on board"? I.e. dickhead warning, in which case bring them on. At least we have half a chance of backing off and away from dangerous driving. Can not really complain as I have a "Bloody Cyclist" jersey. Wonder if I can get away with "Fing Back Off !" on a jersey
On a slightly different topic, way do some cyclist feel the need to move up traffic queues in places were there isn't a cycle lane? We are all road users and abide by the highway code aren't we?
Don't need a sticker to let me know this. My perception of all motorists is that they're d***heads until they give me room or do not tailgate me. I now when negotiating a narrow section or traffic calming measure pull out to 4 drop my right hand and point to my rear wheel and wag my figure if a vehicle is behind. Once clear I drop back to 1and wave the driver behind through. I've found that in most cases I'm then given plenty of room apart from the occasional Beemer/Audi who are incensed that I've delayed them by approximately 2 seconds. It seems to me that I've made the driver aware that I'm aware of their presence and is my own version of Back Off
Waving through anyone is a bad idea, you are opening a whole new can of worms which you do not want to do.
Should have said I'll only wave through once when sure oncoming is clear and I can see no vehicles on side streets. I have in the past blocked drivers from passing me on blind bends and hump backed bridges.
Well i also use the same gesture to indicate drivers should stay back for a second and yes most do get it.
You know a lot of the aggro is that many drivers feel nervous around cyclists. Some aren't quite sure how to deal with you. Their instinct is to get past and not have the problem anymore. Riding assertively let's them know what to do. So yes I look then signal and morve to the primary through pinch points. And I use that back off a bit hand signal as well. So in the same spirit when the road widens I pull back to the secondary and wave them on on with a thank you wave as well. It's polite. I very often gat wave back or a friendly toot or a hazard light flash in recognition. And actually the more all of us do that the more used to it motorists become. They see a pinch point, see you move over and know it's not you trying to annoy them and that as soon as the pinch point is passed they'll be on their way.
There is no can of worms regarding liability. That's a myth. You can wave people through, flash them through you could even get out and personally invite them through. But they are in charge of their vehicle so have to make their own decisions and are liable for them.
Those tailgating twits in Audis and BMWs are the same sort of morons as the one in the Mercedes tailgating me on my way back from my brother's today. I was driving a car for once and as it was raining, dark and the visibility wasn't great, I was driving at slightly less than the posted speed limit of 60 and maintaining a safe distance from the big truck in front. But the Mercedes driver wanted to get past and as soon as he could overtake, did so and then cutting in quickly to avoid an oncoming car. He then trailed along in front of me and behind the truck, which he was unable to overtake until the road became a dual carriageway.
The point I'm making is that some people are so impatient as to not understand that a momentary delay means nothing in the scheme of things.
I'm not clear what your point is here. Can you link to the part of the highway code that proscribes filtering by cyclists (or motorcyclists)? Thanks.
Because for me part of the point of cycling is to be able to circumvent the massive congestion caused by motorists unnecessarily using those ludicrously unnecessarily large vehicles (which have been getting steadily larger on average over recent decades, incidentally). Granted, sometimes it just can't be done with any safety (or even at all) and its better to dismount and just walk along the pavement to get past.
Let's not get offended over a sticker. The sticker doesn't change the law or rules of the road or drivers responsibilities. It's obvious who these are aimed at - people who might unwittingly put themselves in a Lorry's blind spot.
And no, that doesn't mean it's a solution for poor infrastructure, design, driving standards or lorry safety. This all still needs to be improved and addressed.
Oozaveard, great posts, as usual.
I've no problem with this on big trucks. You need to take some responsibility for your own safety, and even assuming an ideal, attentive truck driver it's just not a good idea to go up the inside of big vehicles like that. I don't see anything wrong with reminding people, since a lot of cyclists don't seem to have figured it out yet.
No need for taxis and vans though.
They could try stickers on the inside of windscreens something along the lines of
"Drivers, it's actually the law that you use your indicators...you know that stick on the left of your steering wheel, it goes DOWN for left..try using it...not all road users can read your mind!"
The ctc forum is over there >>>>>
Are there any more bandwagons for them?
If last night's dreadful behaviour on Finchley Road is anything to go by, I really need a sticker on the back of my bike which says:
"Taxi drivers, stay back. If you see me riding in the middle of a bus lane, this is not an invitation for you to try and undertake me at speed and then give me verbal abuse when I change position to prevent you from doing so."
Does anyone know why taxi drivers are allowed to use bus lanes anyway? Taxis aren't classed as essential public transport are they?
My guess? Black cabs are used heavily by media types and politicians and other influential people (mostly on expense accounts). The sort of folk who decide what the rules should be.
Much like the old Soviet Union had special 'Zil lanes' for party apparatchiks, I reckon.
Ridiculous on smaller vehicles, but got to agree with those saying it should stay on lorries. So many people just either don't know or don't care. Given some of the near misses I've seen I often stop behind lorries at an upcoming junction in such a way as to block anyone coming past on the inside. Yes it might be a bit abrupt, but if it saves lives surely it's worth it. At the end of the day, not being your fault is little compensation if you do get hit ....
On reflection though, its not only 'abrupt' (to the point of hostile) but its not actually very clear or specific enough. The suggested image in the article seems much more to-the-point.
The sticker should have a Panda on it
The Dutch encounter less problems as over there drivers that kill are guilty until proven Innocent. Over here the burden of proof lies with the cyclist - who is most often now dead and does not get to to stand in court and give evidence against the person who ran them down.
Pages