- 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
news
Cyclists stay back sticker (CC licensed image by happy days photos and art:Flickr)"A new low" - TfL refuses to order removal of 'Cyclists stay back' stickers
In what has been described as “a new low,” Transport for London (TfL) has rejected calls from road safety organisations and cycle campaign groups to ask vehicle operators in the capital to remove “Cyclists stay back” stickers from their vehicles, claiming it is too difficult.
In February, a joint statement from the Road Danger Reduction Forum (RDRF), CTC, London Cycling Campaign, RoadPeace and the Association of Bikeability Schemes called for the stickers, which have appeared on HGVs, vans, taxis and buses, to be removed by the end of March from all vehicles other than lorries, as originally intended.
Among other things, they said that the wording of the stickers gave the impression that cyclists are second class road users, and that the wording should be a warning rather than a command, similar to the wording that coach operator National Express recently said it would use, which advises, “Caution: blind spots, please take care.”
The organisations did not receive a response, but last week a spokeswoman for TfL told the website Local Transport Today that it is unfeasible to remove the stickers from vehicles.
She said that it would require a “substantial amount of time and money to remove the existing stickers from circulation, effort that would otherwise be devoted to improving the safety of vulnerable road users.”
TfL introduced the stickers in the middle of last year following consultation with road safety and cycling organisations.
While the wording to be used gave rise to controversy, at the time it was intended that the stickers only be displayed on lorries.
Responding to concerns that they have been used on other vehicles too, the spokeswoman continued: “It would be incredibly resource-intensive to differentiate between and enforce the distribution of stickers for different vehicle types.”
TfL’s director of planning for surface transport, Ben Plowden, said: “We are not aware of any evidence that suggests the design of these stickers is reducing their effectiveness in promoting safer behaviour among van, lorry drivers or cyclists.
“We are always open to suggestions about how we can improve safety and we will look at whether the design of future stickers should be changed to further improve their value.”
The RDRF hit out at TfL’s stance, saying on its website that its behaviour over the stickers represented “a new low” and that it had “shown contempt for the main cycling and danger reduction organisations who have tried to get it take a rational approach to this issue.”
It added: “These stickers have been around for nearly a year now. It is unacceptable that TfL is resorting to delaying tactics rather than admitting it made a mistake and taking action to correct it.”
Roger Geffen, campaigns and policy director at CTC, quoted on the RDRF’s website, said: “TfL says it knows of no evidence that these stickers are changing drivers’ behaviour, but that’s only because nobody has looked for the evidence.
“However an inquest has been told that a deceased cyclist had failed to observe a ‘cyclists stay back’ sticker, as if that somehow meant they were at fault.
“We also know of a case where a cyclist, who had been cut up and abused by a left-turning lorry driver, phoned up the company’s ‘How’s my driving’ reporting line, only to be told that he was in the wrong because the lorry had a ‘cyclists stay back’ sticker.
“If that’s how these stickers are affecting people’s attitudes, it seems pretty obvious that they will worsen people’s behaviour too.
“It is ironic that Transport for London is working hard alongside CTC and others in pressing the government to give cyclists greater priority and safety at junctions,” he continued.
“Yet these stickers are clearly giving drivers the impression that it’s up to cyclists themselves to stay out of harm’s way. Instead of denying that there’s a problem,
“TfL really needs to act before these stickers cause yet more deaths and injuries to cyclists because of drivers turning left without looking properly,” he concluded.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Critman 4 sec ago
"30mm outer diameter 18mm inner diameter 13.4mm". Good luck finding a skinny tire.
- espressodan 36 min 40 sec ago
Road.cc: "Cyclists are fed up of victim blaming"...
- Destroyer666 1 hour 28 min ago
Ahem, the recommended lockring is just a common through-axle specific lockring, so nothing Miche specific there, and the required tool for it is an...
- Destroyer666 2 hours 23 min ago
Nonono, not those, but those that have constructed Italian cars and motorcycles that have been driven to hundreds of race and championship...
- RoubaixCube 2 hours 32 min ago
This may well be the case although Im unaware of the brands popularity on their home turf. I used to see them being advertised more in the UK...
- qwerty360 3 hours 2 min ago
Arguably sticking it in a bank account is bad....
- Sredlums 4 hours 1 min ago
I'd counter that those brakes were in fact so inadequate that they eventually developed a whole new type of bicycle that was actually suited for it...
- levestane 4 hours 3 min ago
Unfortunately, Africa is heavily exploited both for resource extraction...
- CitizenSmith 4 hours 29 min ago
There seems to be no support for TOO) now - their email and website are defunct. They are inactive on Facebook. Aftter less than a year the rails...
Add new comment
45 comments
All they needed was one word! - Please
Wouldn't cost too much to print out a 'please' patch to stick on these rude and offensive stickers!
You're badly missing the point! There's no legal or safety reason why a cyclist should be told to STAY BACK from a vehicle like a car, bus or van, which has no genuines blind spots. (I know I drive a van)
The language is highly dubious even for lorries, but to put these stickers on vehicles without blind spots is an attempt to absolve drivers of responsibility. (And precious few show any as it is)
The stickers also hammer the message into the public's mind that cyclists must always STAY BACK, which is complete bollocks. The reason we cycle in the first place is so we don't have to sit in queues of traffic like the people in their massive space-wasting metal boxes.
This is one of the worst safety marketing campaigns in history, and TfL should hang their heads in shame.
So if I'm drafting six inches off your bumper at 50kph that's safe is it? and you can see me?
I mostly agree with you and I am against these signs because they have wider implications, but it's probably better advice for those less experienced than following the bike lane up the left of big vehicles.
> “However an inquest has been told that a deceased cyclist had failed to observe a ‘cyclists stay back’ sticker"...
Serious proposition - if London cyclists attached 'Motorists stay back, overtake wide' stickers to rucksacks or rear racks and are subsequently bumped they presumably would have the same comeback, right?
I think a 'Motorists, don't try to kill me' sticker would be more appropriate!
Good point but the issue is more complex than that. These stickers do not change the law. They don't provide any legal basis to refute liability by motorists. The problem is a more insidious one than that. It's the propensity for people to believe that because it's printed on a colourful sticker it has some legal relevance and to adjust their driving behaviour to one in which they think they are not liable if they hit cyclists that didn't do what the sticker told them to.
They may well get to find out in court (if they get there) that the stickers are legally meaningless. But the harm is already done.
That's why the TFL decision is so harmful. If private and small company drivers see such stickers on TFL (ie official governmenty public sectory) vehicles it implies that they do have some sort of legal or highway code basis.
We all know the propensity of non-cycling motorists most of whom have never read the highway code or referred to it since passing a driving test to just imagine all kinds of rules for other road users (not just cyclists) that simply don't exist, and to imagine all kinds of exemptions or privileges that apply to themselves that also don't exist.
I have had many discussions with friends, family and the odd altercation on the road where the Highway Code is cited followed by just made up invented provisions. That's because most drivers don't know what's in it and so just make up what they think should be in it.
A non cycling incident at the weekend displays this perfectly. I am in a car approaching then passing a line of about 20 cars parked cars on the other side of the road. Halfway along a car approaching in the other direction just overtakes the cars on their side of the road and we come to halt nose to nose. Stupid right?
But wait for it. the other driver gets out and approaches my car and starts beckoning me to get up on the pavement so he can get past. So I get out and ask what he's doing and he says that in situations like this I am allowed to use the pavement to make room "It's in the Highway Code". I told him what's not in the Highway Code is overtaking on the wrong side of the road so that you come head on with oncoming traffic. "But that's OK" says he "because when I approached the parked cars I was travelling faster than you so had right of way".
Nothing to do with cyclists just with people citing rules and provisions they just made up to justify bad and stupid driving. These stickers just add one more element to the confusion.
I would urge cyclists not to go up the inside of slow moving traffic anyway. If you ride in London Just get in the lane behind the vehicles with these stickers. Right in the middle.
ie my solution if TFL won't with draw them is to actually obey them on the inside anyway. If you can't pass then you stay in the lane right?
If any motorist challenges you just point at the sticker.
“However an inquest has been told that a deceased cyclist had failed to observe a ‘cyclists stay back’ sticker, as if that somehow meant they were at fault.
“We also know of a case where a cyclist, who had been cut up and abused by a left-turning lorry driver, phoned up the company’s ‘How’s my driving’ reporting line, only to be told that he was in the wrong because the lorry had a ‘cyclists stay back’ sticker.
“If that’s how these stickers are affecting people’s attitudes, it seems pretty obvious that they will worsen people’s behaviour too.
“It is ironic that Transport for London is working hard alongside CTC and others in pressing the government to give cyclists greater priority and safety at junctions,” he continued.
“Yet these stickers are clearly giving drivers the impression that it’s up to cyclists themselves to stay out of harm’s way."
Worrying. Disappointing.
Does anyone see one of these and NOT think, "f**k you buddy", no matter how wise it actually might be to avoid running alongside that vehicle?
How much would it cost to produce some "Cyclists beware - Shit driver" stickers to cover these things with? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be 'too difficult' to remove them then...
I want a batch of these and will happily slap them on the stickers as I see them!
For this particular problem, my instincts tell me the default American solution may be applicable. Unfortunately, the opportunity to sue may require another tragedy to happen first.
I see plenty of the "Cyclists do not pass on the left" type - which seems fair(ish) on HGVs where there's a massive blind spot. "Cyclists stay back" just says to me "Caution - Moron driving".
The fact that cycle lanes and ASLs encourage people into unsafe places is a whole other debate.
If they take so much effort to remove, they should have used weaker glue...
TfL is a shambles, these stickers should never have been issued with this design / wording.
These stickers are not law and merely encourage drivers of these vehicles that display the stickers to continue to drive in a dangerous manner around cyclists. Period.
Originally intended for HGVs or very large vehicles, it won't be long before ALL commercial vehicles of what ever shape and size are displaying them which would be a disaster for rights of cyclists and cycling as a whole where cyclists are injured or killed.
So now there's hard proof people are using these stickers to abdicate statutory responsibility from vehicle operators. Riiiight.
It would be terribly irresponsible to suggest that non-HGV vehicles bearing these stickers have their nearside indicators dealt to with a centre punch, so I won't.
Pages