- 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
- levestane 13 min 28 sec ago
D&V mix probably does the job.
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 20 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 1 hour 56 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 1 min ago
In the comments "Was it due to icy conditions? "
- chrisonabike 2 hours 7 min ago
Shurely "Place with large concentrations of bikes (and presumably thriving second hand market) in bike theft hotspot shock"?...
- Hirsute 2 hours 8 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 4 hours 42 min ago
Marsh lane was unchanged on Friday - I don't think the contractors have been back since the protest.
- chrisonabike 5 hours 18 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 18 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
Should we get a sense of perspective and see this as being aimed at new, inexperienced cyclists who might be tempted to undertake a lorry? Wait until the summer when, as I call them, the 'occasional cyclists' take to the road; you see some pretty scary manoeuvres and they're completely oblivious to the danger they're in. I always thought undertaking was a complete 'no no' unless it's a stationary queue and you can safely jump a few spaces, but at your own risk.
Big deal over a sign, it is obvious what it means but the new ones do look good.
This is utterly ridiculous. Get off your high horse and ride your bike without moaning about everything.
Bad road use goes BOTH WAYS - ALWAYS.
Nah, it really doesn't.
I can just about tolerate them on HGVs. According to some on here, some cyclists do still cycle up the left of them, so maybe, incredibly, some just aren't aware of the issue. (Edit - though point 4 of the article is a better way).
Putting them on taxis, vans or similar is just rude and would add to my sense that certain drivers have a pathological sense of entitlement. (If its spreading, I wonder if its just become a way to express a general hostility to cyclists, and to warn you they are going to blame you if they hit you?)
For cyclists I'd go with "motorists - follow the highway code when overtaking" except that probably wouldn't fit in a readable font.
Drivers seem to think that it is a license for cutting you off. They are now more and more common, particularly in small vans. If DfT and TFL don't change the way that drivers behave, the "ownership of the road" road tax, etc. argument will not disappear. All vehicles need to be liable for their actions and bicycles need to be treated as rightful road users, not 2nd class.
If stickers are the answer can I get a sticker for my back that says: "MOTORISTS - STAY BACK" ?
Font size 8 would be fine - they are usually near enough to read this no bother.
Might as well say "Stay Back - Careless Driver that doesn't use their mirrors".
In fact I wonder whether putting them on is, in fact, a tacit admission of reduced competence by a driver. I'd be inclined to argue in any collision that such a sticker is an indication by a driver that they do not intend to be considerate to cyclists. Ipso facto are accepting that their own driving standards are low.
Another example of people making up their own highway code.
Saw one of those on the back of a British Transport Police vehicle the other day.
In Guildford
On a Ford Ka, covered most of the boot
not sure on this, having seen some cyclists behaviour, maybe having a sticker, "don't be so f***ing stupid as to try and squeeze down the side of a tractor trailer" makes sense!
Yes the driver should be looking, but that doesn't mean cyclists can do what they like and expect to get away with it. Comes back to why are more women killed then men on london's roads. Education matters!
I agree on the first part, the amount of cyclists that shouted abuse at me for stopping *behind* large vehicles rather than squeezing up the middle of them (and subsequently blocking them from being idiots too) was beyond belief.
Funnily enough most of those idiots were men. Education DOES matter. As does eloquence and logic.
I'm not sure where you're basing your facts on the the stats between male and female cyclists being killed on Londons roads but unless the media is witholding information it seems as if you're wrong. Between now and July last year male deaths on Londons roads were almost 50% higher than female. Going off the stats on ctc's sites, it looks like there was around 9 men and 4 women killed in London.
Bit of a harsh statement on a very sensitive subject, tbh.
Now revise those numbers to reflect the percentage cyclists who are male and who are female.
That is what I meant, there is something very odd when the numbers are as out of kilter as they are.
I know it is a sensitive topic, and I am not trying to be insensitive on this.
quick google brings this back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm
Got to say, your original statement read a bit as though you were saying female cyclists were less educated than male cyclists.
I've always suspected that social conditioning of women to take less assertive positions is a big part of it. Riding behind people as they come to intersections is interesting. Women usually drift in towards the opening instead of continuing in a straight-line. Possibly part of the "be nice and co-operative" conditioning that is placed on women from a very young age.
Yes I was a bit harsh, and education might not be quite the right word, but training to be assertive? There is something to be said for not being co-operative in traffic. I am not saying being a c**k, just holding your line, not ceding for cars and trucks etc. Accepting that you will annoy some drivers, but at least you are alive.
Maybe, if its the case that half the population are statistically less likely to have the character traits necessary to ride like this, it indicates there is a problem with a system that requires such a riding style?
Yes, there is a problem with the roads, and there, I would say bigger, problem with road users. Roads don't kill people, they may give false guidance, a false sense of security, but in themselves a road very rarely kills someone.
The onus has to be on road users to look out for weaker road users to give space and THINK!
The onus on politicians is to make sure road users are safe from the stupid and the dangerous!
I think that's a very negative take on it. Another way of looking at it is that riding a bicycle is a liberating experience in which you are encouraged to be assertive in the sense that oozaveered mentions. And it is possible to adopt new behaviours and attitudes based on training and education.
It's a mistake to assume that all women are like that either... my wife for one wouldn't have much time for the idea that she's incapable of riding assertively and has to wait for the non-existent infrastructure.... Speaking of that infrastructure, if it were possible to convince society to change its expenditures and laws so radically that we could get a dutch infrastructure elsewhere, then it ought to be possible to make other changes, such as accepting that a bicycle's rightful place is being driven safely and courteously without harrasment or fear in primary position in a lane.
Hey, I certainly didn't suggest that all women are like that. Wouldn't dream of saying that. Merely that its a statistical correlation of a sort, for whatever reason (probably social).
I personally think the first change is more possible than the latter, though I grant you both do seem a very long way off. The latter has never happened anywhere, after all and I think goes against human nature (which is to abuse any power advantages you might have over others). Changing physical structures seems more plausible than changing human nature.
Yeah, I misread you or extrapolated wildly from what you said... sorry. Re-reading it's clear you didn't say that.
I really believe there's a fundamentally different attitude at the base of the change that allowed that infrastructure to get built. Here, if you tell people that they're participating in a system of Child Murder you'll be told that you're hysterical and "anti-car". That fundamental attitude was the start of the dutch infrastructure revolution.
I really can't see why sharing the road with other vehicles wouldn't work if the other vehicle drivers would just cop the fuck on.
That's fair enough, although it's a harsh reality that whilst women do tend to cycle more "safely" they bear the brunt of being the more damaged demographic. I'm not sure it's necessarily an 'education' issue but more a set of failures in the likes of infrastructure and even driver education around them. I don't think women should be made to feel like they're at risk for cycling safely, and I don't think men should take the standpoint of being more superior on the roads simply because their trend towards aggressive riding benefits them.
I have to question this as the Dutch ride to these rules yet encounter much fewer problems.
Ok let's not mix up our terms here. Riding safely equates with riding assertively. Assertively means being visible, decisive and communicative. Riding out in the road either primary or secondary. outside the door zones. Holding your position. Holding your lane if you take it. Planning and beginning manouevers early. Making sure that if possible the look over your shoulder is a complete look. That you are seen to be looking as well as actually looking. If possible making eye contact with the driver of the vehicle behind. Then
big gestures to create visible signals that mean "I am going in that space". I am not asking your permission. I am telling you what I am doing. ie every one can see you and knows exactly what you are going to do next. It doesn't stop the areseholes getting a cob on but anyone running you down is definitely doing it on purpose not because they didn't see you.
I see a lot of timid riders and when I am driving they are the worry. I see them because I am tuned in to looking out for cyclists. Otherwise you might miss them. But they're the ones probably not where they should be because they don't want to get in the lane to turn right too early. Limp hand signals followed by indecisive move across lane on the basis of "if you'll let me" and probably way too late in the day to have any control over their own space.
This second style is not safer. It is less safe.
Please don't equate assertiveness with aggression or bad manners. It is totally the opposite. Being assertive is taking your rightful place on the road with confidence and skill and using space, time, position and communication to influence other road users. I am also an advanced driver. The IAM base their test and training on the police driving and motorcycling manual/philosophy called "Roadcraft". For a cycling specific version based on the same Roadcraft philosophy try John Franklin - "How to be a better cyclist".
"The aim is to highlight a cyclist’s right to ‘claim their lane’ and, where safe and appropriate, to assert themselves [by] pushing out further into the lane and making themselves visible to drivers," said Pickering. “Mastering a more assertive and informed style of cycling is definitely something we believe keeps cyclists and motorists safer on our roads.”
Buy it, read it.
I didn't. I meant aggressive riders. Thanks.
From the Highway code:
Turning left
182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
183
When turning
keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.
They're a handy warning for when someone's desperate to overtake you then turn left in front of you. You've got ample milliseconds to read it while you take evasive action.
Think the fall into the same category as "baby on board" signs. What on earth are they actually for?
They're to let you know that the person driving is probably distracted by a noisy child in their car - or "driving without due care attention" as it's often known - and will attempt to use that in their defence after they smear you into the scenery.
I thought “baby on board” stickers always referred to the driver
I don't understand what the sticker means. If I see one I have to "stay back". Back where? A metre back? Twenty metres back? Back at home?
If I am approaching a stationary vehicle with such a sticker then do I have to leave an extra large gap in front of me? What if another vehicle with such a sticker pulls into that gap, do I have to get off my bike and run away?
May as well say
cyclists stay at home
or
cyclists stay off the roads so I can roll this polluting, cancer causing taxi -hauling fat, lazy fcuks- around London whilst giving my gingster sweaty fueled aris bigoted opinion on everything.
Maybe this should have a warning for cyclist to watch out for pot holes?
error
Pages