- 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
Yvan Seth and Cyclists Stay Awesome sticker (CC-BY 2.0 John Stevenson)Lorries told to remove 'cyclists stay back' stickers
Many lorries will be removing poor signage for cyclists thanks to the work of pressure groups objecting to instructions such as ‘cyclists stay back'.
The Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS), a voluntary accreditation scheme encompassing all aspects of safety, fuel efficiency, vehicle emissions and improved operations, is planning to clamp down on these incorrect signs following widespread complaints.
One firm, a waste removal company called A Better Service, was told to remove lit-up signs saying ‘stay back’.
It was in place on about 500 HGVs, but FORS said it preferred warnings to instructions. ‘Take care’ was an approved message, according to Commercial Motor.
Although FORS will only issue a warning for an incorrect sign, A Better Service was failed on its FORS audit because a number of its vehicles displayed no cyclist warning signs at all.
Darren Bicknell, director at A Better Service, said: “We could have just gone with a sticker,” he said. “But we thought we’d go above and beyond to make the vehicles safer and make the sign stand out. But that’s backfired. It’s frustrating.”
Hydro Cleansing MD Steve Hoad, whose company developed the sign, said: “The regulation is political correctness gone crazy. When we got our FORS silver, the auditor fell in love with the sign. He said it was fantastic. Hell will freeze over before I take the signs off. They’re a safety device and do not offend anybody. It’s ridiculous.”
A Fors spokesman said: “Fors is aware that a number of other members are displaying unapproved ‘instructional’ signage and will be taking steps to advise them accordingly to make necessary modifications.”
At road.cc we developed our own response to the ‘stay back’ signs - because cyclists are awesome. All of you.
To celebrate that fact we produced lovely waterproof vinyl stickers to spread the love, inspired by the existing design. Stick one on your car or work vehicle (seek permission from the vehicle owner first... ed) and let everyone on two wheels know that you care, even when you're driving. And the world will be a happier place as a result. We promise!
Stay awesome stickers are available in A5 or A6 sizes, and bells and t-shirts are available too. You can get a big discount if you buy in bulk and distribute them among your friends. To order one, or some, just head over to the road.cc shop. And stay awesome!
Latest Comments
- Cathycycling 4 hours 27 min ago
The Gaciron W12BR-200 is impressive in terms of brightness, durability, and battery life, offering great value for money. I especially like the...
- wtjs 7 hours 35 min ago
You didn't mention The Scottish Dodge, whereby if, by witchcraft, you manage to force your HD video upon the reluctant Scottish Police and they...
- mdavidford 8 hours 12 min ago
Not particularly sure that follows.
- mdavidford 8 hours 30 min ago
There's one that's always lurking outside our house at night.
- mdavidford 8 hours 48 min ago
When these were designed in to the new development near us the excuse was 'well if we didn't it would be impossible to get a rubbish truck in to...
- Rendel Harris 9 hours 46 min ago
I should get onto the Guinness Book of Records people then, as they have the world record slowest heart rate for a healthy person down as 26bpm,...
- Hirsute 12 hours 10 min ago
I made a complaint within an hour of the story being published. I have zero faith that they will amend anything....
- chrisonabike 12 hours 32 min ago
TBF I think that's before she saw the light and got on her bike. Not so great if her views have been informed by Mr. Briggs though.
- Saracen888 13 hours 11 min ago
That's a great price. Just bear in mind Import duty and handling charges will be applied pre delivery.
- Griff500 14 hours 33 min ago
Yep, I appreciate your problem. I wouldn't buy a bike without at least sitting on the same frame configuration on a trainer in the shop, something...
Add new comment
23 comments
I've gotten into such a habit of checking my left mirror before turning left when driving that I occasionally find myself trying to do the same thing when I'm cycling.
It's really not a hard thing to do.
The number of times round Bristol I've seen cyclists go up the inside of cars and trucks indicating left turns. Then they wonder why they get hurt! At a left turn the driver is often looking to the right waiting for a space in the traffic and has to make a quick decision when to go, that’s pretty much obvious and if cyclist take the gamble they need to take the consequences. Some years ago outside Bristol University the car was indicating left to go into the car park, started the turn and the cyclist tried to get through but didn’t. You have to wonder at the thought processes of such people.
I've got 18 years driving experience now living in several capital cities, including London, and the right side of the road on holidays.
I could give a tuppenny f*** if a cyclist, space invader or an occultist sheep mysteriously appears on my side. I still won't hit them.
Because:
1: Three mirrors.
2: Millions of years of perfecting the ultimate sensory organ sensitive to light and movement.
Anyone driving at a lesser standard than me, ie. finds cyclists coming up on their left an issue, should not have a licence.
Is this LH turning driver really you?
Why are you having to make a quick decision to speed of into a gap in the traffic without assessing whether it is safe to do so?
Not only does this put cyclists to your left at risk but there are so many other potential hazards to may be to the left that you haven't checked for.
Don't blame others for your own poor standard of driving.
Why would a driver turning left into a car park be looking *right* for gaps in the traffic? We drive on the left in Bristol, so they wouldn't be crossing any traffic lanes (other than, possibly, a cycle lane).
Exactly - the only time I can think of where you need to look right when turning left is at a T-junction, or crossroads where one road gives way to the other. Unless a cyclist tries to go straight over a crossroads while a car turns left, the described scenario just can't happen. What can happen of course is that drivers can carelessly cut up or collide with cyclists because they can't be bothered to check before turning left onto a side road or at traffic lights.
i think there's two illustrations here. The first regarding the motorist turning out of a junction and failing to shoulder check for a cyclist opting to filter to the junction. The other was a cyclist chancing his luck as the motorist was turning into a car park. At least that's how I read it.
An interesting note in the Highway Code is that motorists are advised to check for filtering cyclists when they are turning left into a side street. Especially when there is a cycle lane.
The number of vehicles that just turn left without indicating at all (or better still speed up to overtake me then turn immediately left) astounds me.....so I now just make the general assumption that any vehicle approaching a left turn is going to make that turn and I hang back. I work on the assumption that I can be morally right all I like but still dead or injuried and fck all is going to happen to the driver.
Noticed a reaction to my stay awesome sticker for the first time a few weeks back. Woman sitting behind me at the lights grinning from ear to ear, pointing and thumbs up, followed me round the corner for a few hundred yards and was still grinning when she turned off a side street. My memory's too crap to remember who came up with it, but to say it's an inspired and optimistic slogan reacting perfectly to something borne of a horrible negative and litigious mindset is a huge understatement.
Darren Bicknell "we thought we'd go above and beyond to make the vehicle safer"
Above and beyond
Making the vehicle safer???????????
The mind boggles at what his concept of cyclist safety actually is.
The worst ones are the Sainsbury's, Cyclists, Beware of passing this vehicle on the inside. Alert today....Alive Tomorrow.
Talk about condescending and victim blaming. Haven't shopped there since.
Surely, in the event of an accident, the presence of these stickers indicates that the driver is aware of the hazard. In which case, the driver must be deemed liable for the accident.
It's like buses with stickers telling you not to undertake them, which would be all well and good, if they gave a decent amount of space when passing. They want to have it both ways.
No - they just want cyclists off "their" roads.
Affordable technology exists to eliminate blindspots completely.
360 degree cameras are now fairly common on ordinary family cars.
How many people have to die before they are mandatory on all large vehicles?
Speak for yourself: my (admittedly rather vintage) 'ordinary family car' doesn't even have a stereo
With this statement, though, I completely agree.
Question: if the side of a lorry is so absolutely dangerous that the operator puts a warning sign on the back of the truck (or a 'blind spot!' sign halfway along the side, as I saw yesterday) then shouldn't they be instructing their drivers never to overtake a cyclist?
I mean, isn't that putting the cyclist into the very spot into which they don't want them to go?
And, we know from news stories that we cannot rely on the motorist seeing and noticing a cyclist directly ahead of them, so that's no excuse.
Argument would be that they can see you enter their blindspot from front (when they overtake you) but not from rear (when you undertake them). It's all nonsense of course.
Sort of my point: they should be able to see you, but tell that to cyclists who've been run over when in an ASL and a truck has come up behind them...
A colleague had a "learning moment" recently when we were in the work pool car; me driving. You could tell she was trying to control her anti-cyclist BS because I was there; for my part I was regretting not bringing a bingo card. After a few false starts and the sort of obvious hunting around in the mind often engaged in by people who haven't ever had to justify their cosy prejudice before - for some way of demonstrating to me that she was justified in her mindset... bingo!
"But some of them just sit in your blind spot when you're at the lights, or come up alongside through your blind spot when you're pulling off. It gives me such a fright!*"
Over the years I've honed the response down from foaming apoplexy, to a simple "Aye right enough, they just materialise right there in the middle of your blind spot." When it happens I usually sweeten the pill afterwards and add something like: "Yeah, they should probably be aware they might be in your blind spot and just avoid going there, and I'm not one for doing it myself, but at the end of the day you're the one with a ton and a half of self-propelled metal strapped to your arse."
* Often, but not always code for "I'd be within my rights to just flatten them."
Heh
I have those sort of "learning moments" every time my wife drives me... It's a bit worrying.
Perhaps it's worth reminding them who's blind spot it is and who is responsible for checking it?
Agreed: if the system (driver + vehicle) is not safe and demonstrated to be so, then it should not be on the road.
Should all large vehicles be forced to use technology to remove blind spots ?