- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Stevenage van stickers (copyright Trevor Coultard).jpgDo these 'baseball bat' van stickers incite violence against cyclists?
Just a mediocre joke or something more serious? BikeBiz reports on a Stevenage business that has been reported to the police for the stickers adorning one of its vans.
The STS2000 van, spotted in Letchworth by freelance photographer Trevor Coultart, has a trio of stickers directed towards cyclists on its rear.
One, spoofing southern hemisphere ‘stay wider of the rider’ campaigns reads: “Cyclists – stay wider of the driver.”
Another reads: “Avoid serious injury, stay away from my van!” – accompanied by a picture of a stick man clobbering a cyclist with a baseball bat.
Video: Driver cuts up cyclist - then threatens him with baseball bat
The third says simply: “My attitude when driving is based upon YOU not hogging the road!”
Speaking to BikeBiz, Coultart said: "I drove past it parked and did two U-turns to get the photo. Is it incitement to violence? Threatening behaviour?"
The ‘avoid serious injury…’ sign appears to be one of many along similar lines. ‘Avoid serious injury, don’t tell me how to do my job!’ seems to be the most common, but an almost identical sticker is also available ending ‘… stay away from my bike!’ There’s even one in the same style that reads: “Tampering with my cello may result in an ass whoopin’ you’ll never forget!”
If that puts the tone of the sticker in perspective, the question is perhaps whether that comes across rather differently when directed towards those who could quite genuinely come to harm.
Yellow "cyclists stay back" stickers have become infamous in recent years with many cyclists of the opinion that the wording implies it is only the person on the bike and not the driver who is responsible for the former’s safety.
They have also proliferated. Originally introduced by Transport for London for buses, they are now seen on all manner of vehicles – even cars. Here at road.cc we responded by producing our ‘Cyclists stay awesome’ stickers so that you can let people know that you care – even when you're driving.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 1 sec ago
A private estate near me has recently closed off vehicle access to one of its entry roads using water-filled plastic blocks, they are about 2 m...
- Rendel Harris 13 min 53 sec ago
To say "died" is simply to say that the person has moved from a state of being alive to a state of being dead with no implication of the cause of...
- Pub bike 1 hour 8 min ago
I can vouch for this. Priory Lane for example runs from the junction with the A205 all the way to Stag Lodge....
- Pub bike 1 hour 17 min ago
"use of illegally modified e-bikes"...
- JLasTSR 1 hour 28 min ago
The cheapest I found with reasonable cover was the Insurance Emporium.
- Gbjbanjs 10 hours 57 min ago
As an Irish person, I am embarrassed for this guy and the judge. He is clearly a thug, so do not get where he takes pride in wearing the country...
- Rendel Harris 13 hours 8 min ago
Far be it from me to tell you your business, but if you want to promote your product sneakily on a website without paying for advertising then...
Add new comment
120 comments
L.Willo. I hope you do keep posting. This would be a very dull site without viewpoints that challenge a sometimes closed mind set of bunker dwellers. Whilst I would disagree with you about having a basic duty of care towards other road users, I would agree that for many drivers this happens to be a serendipitous consequence of a desire to avoid personal injury, damage to own property, inconvenience or higher insurance premiums rather than any altruistic motive.
My God, he's having conversation with himself now.
Getting back to the matter in hand, wouldn't the stickers come under section 5 of the Public Order Act - if a number of persons chose to complain about them causing offence or alarm?
Depends how you read the Highway Code doesn't it? I read the Highway Code as a combination of guidance and reminders of pertinent law that if you follow will keep YOU safe. Why does the Highway Code say that you SHOULD wear a cycle helmet and MUST have working lights after dark? So you can take responsibility for the safety of other road users? No, so you can take responsibility for your own safety.
Same for safe overtaking distances. If you don't provide wobble room, your risk of an accident and injury to yourself and your passengers and damage to your vehicle rises exponentially. Same for just about every rule and guidance in the Highway Code designed primarily to keep YOU safe.
I do not know what has happened to society, at least below the line here, where taking responsibility for your own conduct and welfare has become such an anathematic concept.
And for the hard of thinking, being careful and paying attention does not mean taking responsibility for the safety of others. Not even close.
Using local knowledge to warn someone that the currents are treacherous and they should not swim in the sea here is being careful and considerate. Rugby tackling them to the sand, pinning them down and preventing them from entering the water is taking responsibility for their safety. I might consider that for a stupid, know-all child or adolescent who does not know any better ... a grown adult,.... fuck that. You make your own decisions and live or die with the consequences.
Munge I think you're being a bit idealistic there. What you quickly realise is that no amount of honing of argument will be of any use against someone who is irrational. All issues can be argued/discussed ad infinitum through strands of 'logic'.
What is useful are people with opposing points of view, that are rational. Then you can have a good debate and everyone can learn something.
People like willo can put you into a comfort zone, where you think, look how easy it is to win a debate about cycling helmets, road safety etc, then you can get caught off-guard by someone who really knows how to debate rationally with strong arguments that you weren't prepared for, because lets face it, you were previously running around in circles dealing with trollish forum warrioring.
You can only be as good as your opponent.
That said, fair play to the guys taking time out to rubbish the nonsense he puts out, because you will get people clicking on pages and randomly reading comments for years to come, and you don't really want nonsense left unchallenged in case it influences some young mind.
I've seen some serious trolling across a variety of websites over the years but this L. Willo guy is elite level. Lance Armstrong level at least.
I dare say our future robot car driving overlords will have a much better attitude to driving than Willo...
Healthy human response to danger
Abnormal human response to danger
It's fairly simple. He's either trolling, lying to himself becauase he's a contrarian twat (most likely), or he has issues.
Well I at least have learned something from this particular debate. I can truthfully, hand on heart state that my primary concerns when driving are for the safety of my passengers, myself and other people (in that order if it makes any difference). Even strangers have friends and family to go home to at the end of the day. Cars and bicycles can always be fixed or replaced, people cannot. If the happy consequence of that attitude is also that my paintwork does not get scratched then I'm even happier.
Whilst I can and do make efforts to protect myself as a vulnerable road user, I do expect a certain level of competence, respect for the rules and care for my continuing existence from the rest of you buggers. If I went round treating every other user as an incompetent fool then every journey would probably end in a paranoia induced cardiac arrest.
It's banter - learn to take a joke (yes I'm a cyclist and I've been hit by plenty of cars).
It's not good banter but who cares.
Now - if this clown hits a cyclist this could be pretty good evidence in your favour / showing their animosity to cyclists. If anything it's good for us so - he should go for it...
It is pure win. They might as well have a sign sayng "guilty" on their van.
[[[[[ L.Wallyo's attitude is clearly "I'm the big I am, and everyone else on the road can go fluck themselves" I'll bet his mummy doesn't see him for the selfish jerk he is... she's probably proud of him.
In fairness, this site seems to have less nutters commenting on it that most. I suspect L.Willo is actually a collective of many nutters; this would "even up" the stats. It would also explain how his "argument" veers about almost as much as we might imagine that he does when driving his precious hunk of paintwork around.
Better to argue the issue(s), rather than denigrate senior citizens methinks.
In the interests of balance, let me just say that I whole-heartedly disagree, Willo. Your trolling/espousing your narrow-minded and impractical approach to cycling on what might be interesting debate topics is the dullest thing to happen to road.cc for a long time.
Erm, no. It is quite clear.
Your analogy is flawed, btw, as in the case of the swimmer, you are not the one putting them at risk in the first place.
SSHHHH!
Don't mention Voldemort for gawds sake!
You must be new here, you have made a comment that is relevant to the story and no mention of helmets. Schoolboy error.
I think you should cut him (L. Willo) some slack here. He's temporarily off his meds and is having a hard time coping with reality. His venting on this forum is just a way of getting the crazy out of his head.
Have you ever debated a young Earth creationist or a Moon landing denier? It's actually something of a shock when you realise that people can genuinely hold beliefs that go against your own experiences, research, common sense or what you would consider any reasonable interpretation of evidence / observed facts and that they are not just simply being obtuse or winding you up. It is perfectly possible to propose a cogent argument, however unpopular or ultimately flawed, with which the mainstream disagree vehemently. If nothing else an opposing viewpoint acts as a foil to hone your own argument or maybe even consider and reassess your own position on contentious issues.
[[[[[ L. Willo "just letting off steam"? Fine, but I'm more concerned that his rabble-rousing stickers promote even worse driving than we experience right now.
I'm all for that - and have nothing against Willo's opinions per se. Despite some arguments above, it's rare that all commenters on here are in the same camp. Lively debates on here are often pretty entertaining. But let's not kid ourselves that Willo is a voice of reason in a dogmatic mob full of cycling mentalists. His argument on this thread is anything but cogent.
His strident, over-simplistic, black-and-white view of the world is tiresome. he seems to be channeling his wider frustrations with society through digs at cyclists' behaviour. But I'd even be for that - if it was consistent and conversational.
It's his persistent siding with anyone-but-the-cyclist (suppose I did ask for consistency) on a cycling site, occasionally backed up with daft claims, and general ignoring of sensible and logical responses, that comes across as trolling. People rebut his argument, take the time to post considered reponses and what does he do? Does he respond in kind? No - have a pithy dismissal or complete lack of acknowledgement. Numerous examples up there ^.
(Edit - I partially take this last point ^ back. I've just read the comments on the NSW article and he's actually having a debate in there, so credit where it's due.)
His idea of engagement seems only to lecture (or wind up?) on Why Cyclists Often Get It Wrong regarding interaction with other road users. Fair enough - I'm not crying BanHammer. But he can't be surprised at the level of flaming he's triggered.
It's okay. I visit my nan in the same nursing home that L. Willo is in. He's actually 78 years old and can't visit the lavatory without two attendants accompanying him. If he's not allowed to post rubbish here, he'll be making nuisance calls to 118 118 again and that really runs up the phone bill.
You're psychotic if you think the reason the highway code suggests giving cyclist a wide berth is so you don't scratch your paintwork.
Does it matter? Does it give you a nice warm cozy feeling inside to cycle around with the illusion that poor vulnerable you are being parented by other road users? Personally I think that is a pathetic attitude but hey ho, horses for courses.
What actual difference does it make to you that a complete stranger is more interested in protecting his paintwork than injuring you, or indeed vice versa? None. The outcome is the same, is it not?
No, because I am constantly wary of other cars when driving, or cycling for that matter. I don't trust other drivers. Conversely, I am very cautious and forgiving of cyclists when I'm driving, and the chances are at least some of the drivers I'm wary of on a bike are the same. The two views are not incompatible.
Anyone behind the wheel of a car should be cautious of EVERYONE more vulnerable them, and damn their paintwork. If everyone was aware of the damage they could do to more vulnerable road users then everyone would be a whole lot safer.
What part of, if I don't damage my paintwork, I don't damage anyone else, are you having difficulty comprehending?
You expect me to drive carefully and responsibly and not crash into you. You get that one for free. I don't want an accident either.
However you also seem to also be demanding that your welfare ought to be my primary consideration. That is a level of self-entitlement that beggars belief.
No way! The safety of me and my passengers come first. Always.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I think that maybe a review of Roadcraft and the Highway Code is in order here. Have you done any driver training since your (basic) test?
They are mutually exclusive. I cannot put you first and me first. I am not going to pretend for one second that I care more about the safety of a complete stranger than I do about the safety of myself and the passengers in my car.
It would take a ridiculous level of self-entitled lunacy for me to demand that you ought to care more about my welfare than your own when on the road. I have no right to even dream of asking for such a thing from a complete stranger.
This place is weird. Really weird.
You seem to think this is about winning and losing - not an attitude conducive to good or competent driving.
You also seem to (perhaps wilfully) misunderstand what was written.
I suggest that you learn to be a better driver and maybe do some further training. I take it you have done none since your (very basic) inital lessons & test.
Literally nobody suggested that you should.
The counter argument is that you should put other humans above your paintwork.
Floundering by twisting the opposing argument is not debating.
Pages