# Sticker says "I cant see cyclists" , has Croydon council logo.



## glenn forger (25 Jul 2016)

On the back of a Diamond Relocations truck


----------



## Andrew_P (25 Jul 2016)

Yeah I saw that on one, peanuts


----------



## jefmcg (25 Jul 2016)

Croydon Council to 'urgently' look at road safety after death of cyclist in St James's Road, Croydon


----------



## srw (25 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> On the back of a Diamond Relocations truck


https://secure.croydon.gov.uk/eform...469454396348&ebd=0&ebp=10&ebz=1_1469454396348
Might be rather more productive than just posting a photo online...


----------



## Drago (25 Jul 2016)

I bet he can see convertibles driven by large chested women, yorkie bars, and amber traffic lights on the verge of turning red.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jul 2016)

A "cyclist aware" logo on a sign that says you are not aware of cyclists........


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Jul 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> A "cyclist aware" logo on a sign that says you are not aware of cyclists........


Except it's ''cycle aware'' and cycleaware.com / cycleaware Inc are a California corporation selling reflective clothing, mirrors, etc., and I'm sure they have not been consulted about the use of their trademark. Their site lists Cannondale and Jamis on their ''community links'' page, who I'm sure would not want to be associated with whoever came up with the ''I can't see cyclists'' brainwave.


----------



## david k (25 Jul 2016)

I've seen these notes several times. 
This actually annoys me , they may as well say "if I hit you it's your own fault" or " I take no responsibility for hitting you"
A sign doesn't relinquish responsibility, like my daughters old horse riding school saying you ride here at your own risk, what you charge, make money but expect no responsibility ?? You take the money you must accept responsibility


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jul 2016)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Except it's ''cycle aware'' and cycleaware.com / cycleaware Inc are a California corporation selling reflective clothing, mirrors, etc., and I'm sure they have not been consulted about the use of their trademark. Their site lists Cannondale and Jamis on their ''community links'' page, who I'm sure would not want to be associated with whoever came up with the ''I can't see cyclists'' brainwave.




I used "cyclist aware" in inverted commas to recognise the fact that it was probably generic as neither this nor the "hashtag" seem to come up on Google


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Jul 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> I used "cyclist aware" in inverted commas to recognise the fact that it was probably generic as neither this nor the "hashtag" seem to come up on Google


The hashtag angle seems to have drawn a blank, true, but ''cycle aware'' brought up *this company *whose name has been used, either with or without their consent. I'd suggest it was without their consent and I'd argue that attributing selective bike blindness to truck drivers harms their image.


----------



## Drago (25 Jul 2016)

Considering how cheap and effective modern vehicle camera technology is I can't understand why any large vehicle is allowed on the roads with known blinds spots. It seems our lives are cheaper than the necessary equipment.


----------



## david k (25 Jul 2016)

Is it only cyclists he cannot see?

If a cyclist is in front can he or she not see them?


----------



## LocalLad (25 Jul 2016)

david k said:


> Is it only cyclists he cannot see?
> 
> If a cyclist is in front can he or she not see them?


What if the cyclist was in the cab with him?!?


----------



## Drago (25 Jul 2016)

I bet if an attractive female cyclist with her cleavage on show went past they'd spot it.


----------



## david k (25 Jul 2016)

LocalLad said:


> What if the cyclist was in the cab with him?!?



Then he would undoubtably be invisible to him


----------



## david k (25 Jul 2016)

Drago said:


> Considering how cheap and effective modern vehicle camera technology is I can't understand why any large vehicle is allowed on the roads with known blinds spots. It seems our lives are cheaper than the necessary equipment.



Nope, not a chance, absolutely invisible, he simply cannot see them


----------



## LocalLad (25 Jul 2016)

david k said:


> Then he would undoubtably be invisible to him


Even worse...what if he is a cyclist. He wouldn't see himself in the mirror and would, therefore, be a vampire.

Bloody hell, I'm staying well clear of him......so, maybe the sign works?


----------



## bozmandb9 (25 Jul 2016)

In our region, the waste collection company, Grundon have been really great about educating their drivers, and have installed extra cameras and mirrors so they CAN see cyclists. They've also done a roadshow at cycling events, getting cyclists into the cab, to show what the problem is (or was), and I think have also got their drivers to get on bikes, to see it from the other side. This is all the more impressive in that we are semi rural, so I'd say it's less relevant, I don't think I've ever seen one of their trucks whilst on a ride (note to self, must get out for more early morning rides).

They've done it really well on the PR side anyway, I suspect that it may not be fully rolled out and implemented, and some of the drivers may not be as reasonable as the ones they take on the roadshow. But I really respect the fact that they are making the effort, and raising the bar.


----------



## bozmandb9 (25 Jul 2016)

I wonder if that sign is in fact an admission of potential liability? As it's a known defect, putting a sign on the vehicle (which may or may not be legible to cyclists), is surely just an admission of culpability if and when they injure or kill?


----------



## steveindenmark (26 Jul 2016)

Well I have been a class 1 driver for over 30 years and I can see cyclists. Maybe the driver is a member of The Association Of Blind Truck Drivers. Just be aware that there are a lot of their members on the roads.


----------



## david k (26 Jul 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> I wonder if that sign is in fact an admission of potential liability? As it's a known defect, putting a sign on the vehicle (which may or may not be legible to cyclists), is surely just an admission of culpability if and when they injure or kill?


Yes but the intention is to put blame on cyclists, we told you we couldn't see you, it's your own fault is the message


----------



## steveindenmark (26 Jul 2016)

david k said:


> Yes but the intention is to put blame on cyclists, we told you we couldn't see you, it's your own fault is the message



On the other hand he may just be informing you that if you park right up the arse of his lorry, he cannot see you. In which case he correct he cannot see you. But in reality the driver may not even know the sign exists as he probably drives a different truck every day and they slap all sorts of dayglow rubbish signs on trucks which you tend not to pay attention to.


----------



## Spinney (26 Jul 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> *On the other hand he may just be informing you that if you park right up the arse of his lorry, he cannot see you.* In which case he correct he cannot see you. But in reality the driver may not even know the sign exists as he probably drives a different truck every day and they slap all sorts of dayglow rubbish signs on trucks which you tend not to pay attention to.


In which case the signs that say 'If you can't see my mirrors I can't see you' are a bit more sensible (and give less of the 'blame-transferring' impression).


----------



## steveindenmark (26 Jul 2016)

Spinney said:


> In which case the signs that say 'If you can't see my mirrors I can't see you' are a bit more sensible (and give less of the 'blame-transferring' impression).



Probably designed and written by a designer who has never sat in a lorry and not a driver. Plus the sign would need to be a lot bigger and not leave room for other useless signs like "Am I a good driver? Ring xxxxxx"


----------



## bozmandb9 (26 Jul 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Probably designed and written by a designer who has never sat in a lorry and not a driver. Plus the sign would need to be a lot bigger and not leave room for other useless signs like "Am I a good driver? Ring xxxxxx"



Love those 'Am I a good driver? Ring xxx' which are so small that you have to crash into the back of them to actually read the number.


----------



## steveindenmark (26 Jul 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> Love those 'Am I a good driver? Ring xxx' which are so small that you have to crash into the back of them to actually read the number.



Well you shouldn't because it means you are missing the "Stay Back" sticker.


----------



## Jody (26 Jul 2016)

david k said:


> Yes but the intention is to put blame on cyclists, we told you we couldn't see you, it's your own fault is the message



Its surely only the same as putting one of those "beware of the dog" signs on your gate. You have admitted liability before the event has taken place.


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jul 2016)

Be interestin


Jody said:


> Its surely only the same as putting one of those "beware of the dog" signs on your gate. You have admitted liability before the event has taken place.



It's more like a cyclist having a sign that says "If you cant read this i will shoot you in the head".


----------



## Mugshot (26 Jul 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> Love those 'Am I a good driver? Ring xxx' which are so small that you have to crash into the back of them to actually read the number.


Rang one of those once about a Tesco lorry, I said he wasn't a good driver, he said he was a good driver, I didn't have a camera, that was the end of that. Result


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jul 2016)

On a related note, Ive no idea what a ManTG is but stay well clear:


----------



## Jody (26 Jul 2016)

User said:


> Not really. You are entitled to have a loose dog on your own secured property.



Of course you are allowed a dog loose on your own property. In the event your dog bites someone and your sign says beware or warning you are liable by admission of the sign. 

http://www.govyou.co.uk/beware-of-the-dog-sign-laws/

"If such a sign is on display when the dog attacks a trespasser, then its owner is liable for prosecution, because it could be argued that by displaying the sign they knew the dog was dangerous. However, if the dog attacks an intruder when no sign is visible then the court would decree that the owner was unaware of the threat of the animal, and is therefore not liable for court action"

You can still put signs up that say things like dogs running free etc.

I am not in the legal profession but this was my understanding of the sign if used


----------



## Milkfloat (26 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> Of course you are allowed a dog loose on your own property. In the event your dog bites someone and your sign says beware or warning you are liable by admission of the sign.
> 
> http://www.govyou.co.uk/beware-of-the-dog-sign-laws/
> 
> ...



That article is a big steaming turd of dog mess.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (26 Jul 2016)

Any driver with this sticker should be removed from the road until they've sat an extended driving test.
And if they're ignorant of the sticker it shows they did not check their vehicle before they set off. Do they regularly fly around with the tailgate down and the back doors open?


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Jul 2016)

david k said:


> A sign doesn't relinquish responsibility, like my daughters old horse riding school saying you ride here at your own risk, what you charge, make money but expect no responsibility ?? You take the money you must accept responsibility



I dunno about that. I think they're just point out that horse-riding carries a certain amount of risk, and that accidents can still happen despite all reasonable precautions being taken. It doesn't absolve them of all responsibility.

The signs on the trucks on the other hand are a load of bollocks. The roads are a public space, and you can't simply put a sticker on your vehicle to warn other road users of some stupid rule you made up.


----------



## Jody (26 Jul 2016)

Has anyone contacted Croydon council on their Twitter page?


----------



## jarlrmai (26 Jul 2016)

User said:


> You can even have a tight dog....



My dog has never lent me any money ever.


----------



## Markymark (26 Jul 2016)

User said:


> @Fab Foodie complains that his never gets a round in.


That's because it's a Scottish terrier.


----------



## Drago (26 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> Has anyone contacted Croydon council on their Twitter page?


No, That'd mean joining Twitter first, and id rather invite User round for dinner than do that.


----------



## Tim Hall (26 Jul 2016)

User said:


> @Fab Foodie complains that his never gets a round in.


This is where a beer kitty is so much more useful.


----------



## jefmcg (27 Jul 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Probably designed and written by a designer who has never sat in a lorry and not a driver. Plus the sign would need to be a lot bigger and not leave room for other useless signs like "Am I a good driver? Ring xxxxxx"


It really is completely half baked. The slogan is just wrong, and clear written by someone who has no idea of road safety. But more than that, what is the hash-tag for. Normally, someone creates a hashtag because they have some social media strategy, trying to generate buzz or "start a conversation". So as well as putting the hashtag on stickers, you make a few tweets using it. But until Monday, there were no tweets at all using the hashtag. Now there is one https://twitter.com/hashtag/icantseecyclists?src=hash

I just get a vision of a meeting, when someone has a brilliant idea "we should make a hashtag. Isn't that what the kids do?"


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Jul 2016)

I think the lorry driver should remove the sign and let those cyclists not paying attention to the road ahead, just plough into the back of him. Problem solved.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrKLGEOVRA


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jul 2016)

jefmcg said:


> It really is completely half baked. The slogan is just wrong, and clear written by someone who has no idea of road safety. But more than that, what is the hash-tag for. Normally, someone creates a hashtag because they have some social media strategy, trying to generate buzz or "start a conversation". So as well as putting the hashtag on stickers, you make a few tweets using it. But until Monday, there were no tweets at all using the hashtag. Now there is one https://twitter.com/hashtag/icantseecyclists?src=hash
> 
> I just get a vision of a meeting, when someone has a brilliant idea "we should make a hashtag. Isn't that what the kids do?"




Reading that link, the initiative is supported, and possibly funded, by an HGV company. Their boss stresses the dangers of cyclists undertaking. As if that is what is killing people on bikes. Except it isnt. Most victims are run down from behind, or killed by a drunk, blind or banned HGV driver. So the industry of road haulage has subverted a road safety campaign and turned it into a victim blaming campaign that lies about the victims. Trebles all round!


----------



## jefmcg (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Reading that link, the initiative is supported, and possibly funded, by an HGV company.


From my link? What are you seeing? Nothing on that page suggest that to me.

(tweet from @mjray has appeared)


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jul 2016)

Sorry, this link:

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3131.html

Bryan Smith, owner of Transporta, said: “We are acutely aware of the dangers to cyclists who ride alongside our vehicles at junctions. Some of our trailers are over 40 feet long and will effectively close down the whole lane when turning. Any cyclist alongside is taking their life in their hands. - See more at: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3131.html#sthash.sPUM2QQk.dpuf


----------



## jefmcg (27 Jul 2016)

Irony is alive and well and living in Croydon. They drove this around to increase cyclist safety.


----------



## mjr (27 Jul 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Irony is alive and well and living in Croydon. They drove this around to increase cyclist safety.


I particularly like the way that cyclists travelling in the same direction can only read the "stay-behind" no-overtaking message once they've started overtaking the lorry - or more likely, once the lorry has started overtaking them, they'll see its get-back-scum message as it turns across their path.

Croydon Crapcil sent the link to the article @glenn forger mentions in reply to my tweet. This is for real and not a hoax. Absolutely scandalous. Any Croydon constituents on here? Your taxes are being frittered away by madmen.


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Sorry, this link:
> 
> http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3131.html
> 
> Bryan Smith, owner of Transporta, said: “We are acutely aware of the dangers to cyclists who ride alongside our vehicles at junctions. Some of our trailers are over 40 feet long and will effectively close down the whole lane when turning. Any cyclist alongside is taking their life in their hands. - See more at: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3131.html#sthash.sPUM2QQk.dpuf


To quote that article....
"
*‘Cycle Aware’ campaign launched in Croydon*
Tuesday 15th October 2013"

(My red highlight). I think you might be at risk of getting your knickers in a twist about something which disappeared without trace a couple of years ago.

Which doesn't excuse Croydon's sorry response to @mjray.


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jul 2016)

That link is being sent out by the campaign, they sent it this morning.


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> That link is being sent out by the campaign, they sent it this morning.


In which case I suggest you give them a ring, rather than complain to us.

From the website:



> *Cyclists' safety*
> *Elaine Beckett, *Principal Road Safety Officer, London Borough of Hackney • 0208 356 4963
> 
> *Sean Carroll, *Senior Road Safety Officer, East Riding Council • 01482 395574


http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/pages/advice.html


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jul 2016)

I have.


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> I have.


I'm sure I'm not the only person who is more interested in what they said, and how they're going to improve communications, than in the fact that you're a bit cheesed off.


----------



## mjr (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> I have.


Would you let us know their response? Meanwhile, I've contacted Croydon outside of Twitter too. The person who spotted the sticker this week is asking them questions too.

I'd missed that it was launched 2013, but this evil sticker seems still in use. Has anyone challenged this particular variation of shoot already?


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jul 2016)

Thay havent replied and theyre not allowing my comments on that "Road safety" page that asked what Transporta's financial input was.


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Thay havent replied and theyre not allowing my comments on that "Road safety" page that asked what Transporta's financial input was.


You've got a couple of phone numbers and a fair bit of time. I'm sure that sooner or later one of the two people who are responsible for the cycling component will be available to speak to you. Perhaps they're on holiday at the moment.


----------



## mjr (27 Jul 2016)

srw said:


> You've got a couple of phone numbers and a fair bit of time. I'm sure that sooner or later one of the two people who are responsible for the cycling component will be available to speak to you. Perhaps they're on holiday at the moment.


Or perhaps those "road safety" officers who got the short straw of cyclist safety don't like talking to actual cyclists. They wouldn't be the first. If you do track them down, they may well stick to blaming cyclists for their own deaths.


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2016)

mjray said:


> Or perhaps those "road safety" officers who got the short straw of cyclist safety don't like talking to actual cyclists. They wouldn't be the first. If you do track them down, they may well stick to blaming cyclists for their own deaths.


We won't know until @glenn forger manages to speak to them. He's got their phone numbers _and_ their email addresses and employers, and he's a persistant individual.


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jul 2016)

We know they dont allow comments that ask questions about exactly what backing Transporta gave so i dont have high hopes. No reply on twitter either. Maybe they didnt realise that a road sfaety campaign backed by a haulage firm that squarely blames cyclists comes across badly.


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> We know they dont allow comments that ask questions about exactly what backing Transporta gave so i dont have high hopes. No reply on twitter either. Maybe they didnt realise that a road sfaety campaign backed by a haulage firm that squarely blames cyclists comes across badly.


Well, _we_ don't. We know that you claim to have posted a comment on the thread which hasn't yet made it through their moderation. We don't know why not.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> We know they dont allow comments that ask questions about exactly what backing Transporta gave so i dont have high hopes. No reply on twitter either. Maybe they didnt realise that a road sfaety campaign backed by a haulage firm that squarely blames cyclists comes across badly.


Do you think that cycleaware.com might be interested in the copyright issue over name and derivative logo, particularly as it harms their image?


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> We know they dont allow comments that ask questions about exactly what backing Transporta gave so i dont have high hopes. No reply on twitter either. Maybe they didnt realise that a road sfaety campaign backed by a haulage firm that squarely blames cyclists comes across badly.


http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3131.html

We now know that you're wrong and they do allow such questions on their comments threads. I'm sure that when you speak to their two cycling specialists you'll pose questions in a way that doesn't invite a one-word response. Perhaps you could invite them to this discussion?


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jul 2016)

[UOTE="mjray, post: 4385529, member: 34410"]Would you let us know their response? Meanwhile, I've contacted Croydon outside of Twitter too. The person who spotted the sticker this week is asking them questions too.

I'd missed that it was launched 2013, but this evil sticker seems still in use. Has anyone challenged this particular variation of shoot already?[/QUOTE]
They wont allow any questions that ask what financial help Transporta gave. Either the firm were generously given free publicity to slag off victims or they paid for it. But they wont let you ask that.


----------



## jarlrmai (27 Jul 2016)

Tried an FOI request?


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jul 2016)

Weirdly, exactly the same thing happened with that Share The Road clip on youtube. They closed comments after they were asked the same question about an 
Hgv firm's role in the film, which was to complain about undertaking.


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> They wont allow any questions that ask what financial help Transporta gave. Either the firm were generously given free publicity to slag off victims or they paid for it. But they wont let you ask that.


It always helps if you ask nicely....


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jul 2016)

We already know they are supporters. They admitted it. Three questions about whether they financed the campaign were deemed usuitable for publication.


----------



## mjr (28 Jul 2016)

I just received a telephone call from a Croydon Council officer. She assures me that it's the remnants of the tail-end of an old campaign and the council banners have been removed. I summarised the concerns expressed above. I'm not sure they were really accepted but she did invite suggestions for better campaigns. It's not a geographic area I campaign in, so I'll pass her contact details to LCC (central office and local groups) and nuttyxander.


----------

