# Cyclists Beware: The cancer is spreading



## User (3 Oct 2016)




----------



## Spiderweb (3 Oct 2016)

I regularly see cyclists passing HGV's on the inside. Why risk your life?
I agree with these stickers, the bigger the better.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Oct 2016)




----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

Spiderweb said:


> I regularly see cyclists passing HGV's on the inside. Why risk your life?
> I agree with these stickers, the bigger the better.


Wow, where? I've almost never seen it except where there's a marked lane.

The problem is that lorry operators should be replacing the low-visibility cabs with direct-vision ones ASAP, not wasting money putting lipstick on a pig like this and effectively telling their drivers to ignore Highway Code Rules 151, 167, 182, 183 and probably more.


----------



## Flying Dodo (3 Oct 2016)

Mmm.......on the one hand big lorries shouldn't go cutting across and driving into cyclists which is the key problem, but yes, there are some daft cyclists who undertake lorries.

Provide that lorry drivers still get proper instruction about their driving standards to deal with being around cyclists, and more importantly, there's still pressure brought on them to have better designed cabs, so they can see out better, then the stickers on the back don't really matter. Hopefully the majority of cyclists don't undertake, but if it stops even just one person doing it, because they'd not thought about the issues before, then that's good. But in the same way a car driver decides to jump a red light, so certain people will ignore a sticker.


----------



## Markymark (3 Oct 2016)

Spiderweb said:


> I regularly see cyclists passing HGV's on the inside. Why risk your life?
> I agree with these stickers, the bigger the better.


I wanted one that said don;t overtake me too closely. Don't overtake me above the speed limit. Don't overtake me then turn across me. Don't overtake me if you are drunk. Don't overtake me if you haven't got insurance. Don't overtake me if your vehicle is not road worthy. Don't overtake me if you are tired. Don't overtake me if you are using your mobile.

The problem was my back is not big enough. I then suggested that I teach drivers this so they understand. Turns out they all supposedly did this when they got their license.

Seeing as those listed above kill and injure hundreds daily I would suggest me getting my point across is more worthwhile, no?


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Wow, where?



I see it a heck of a lot in London. If you think that cyclists do not undertake lorries (and other vehicles) then you are leading a very sheltered cycling life.



I myself have lost count at the number of times that I have had to yell at other cyclists not to undertake left turning vehicles on my commute over the years.


----------



## Flying Dodo (3 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> I see a heck of a lot in London. If you think that cyclists do not undertake lorries (and other vehicles) then you are leading a very sheltered cycling life.
> 
> 
> 
> I myself have lost count at the number of times that I have had to yell at other cyclists not to undertake left turning vehicles on my commute over the years.



Same here. Although to be honest, they all either ignore me or give me the finger. They clearly know best.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Nobody is suggesting that there aren't some idiot cyclists out there but in the majority of KSI cases in London in recent years there has been clear evidence that the cyclist was not to blame - indeed they have often been using the farcilities that encourage them into dangerous places
> 
> Let's be honest - these signs are not about educating cyclists (and pedestrians - as they're now getting targeted by these stupid signs) but about trying to shift the blame and CYA for drivers and their employers.




Your arguing with the wrong person. My post was in reply to MJR's post at his apparent surprise that cyclists would do such a thing.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> Same here. Although to be honest, they all either ignore me or give me the finger. They clearly know best.



Indeed.
One pillock, after I shouted at him not to undertake (a left turning lorry at a RAB) asked me if I was his mother. I said, no, just the poor sap that would have to see a load of blood and guts spread over the road,


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

Stickers are cheap. It's victim blaming. 
"We are responsible carriers, all our lorries have a sticker warning cyclists not to go there"
......with the unwritten subtext that "We just spent 2 quid to carry on unaffected and without having to spend more so if you go under our truck, it's your fault alone".

I'd support them if I believed they were genuinely there for the education of cyclists. Sadly I believe they are there as a sop to evade responsibility for more expensive measures such as training drivers and better view from cabs.

So, no cyclists shouldn't undertake trucks, I'm relatively inexperienced (certainly compared to many here), it's why I read this site. But even I learned this one within days of returning to the road after a 20 year absence. But I don't believe for a second that cyclist education is why companies put these stickers on.

Well, that's my opinion thus far, and I'm stick(er)ing to it for now.


----------



## BrynCP (3 Oct 2016)

I see a lot of people in Hull going on the insides of lorries, buses, dustcarts etc. Some get very annoyed when I am stopped being such a vehicle and they're intent on getting by it (on the inside) to go into the ASZ (or worse, through the red light).

Many Hull cyclists are commuters, who do few miles a week and are not as competent as some here. If the stickers make them think and stop them putting themselves in danger, they're doing a job regardless of who they're really trying to save.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2016)

User said:


> He was suggesting he didn't see it much except with marked lanes



Marked or non marked. It means jot all to some cyclists and it's not just confined to London.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> I see it a heck of a lot in London. If you think that cyclists do not undertake lorries (and other vehicles) then you are leading a very sheltered cycling life.


I said "almost never" and yes, most of them have been in London. But in North Yorkshire?

[QUOTE 4495239, member: 259"]They are part of a national campaign in NL called Velilig op de weg (Safe on the roads) which is run by cycling safety and trucking industry organisations.[/QUOTE]
Really? It looks like it's the freight industry with the complicity of the VVN. What cycling safety organisation is involved? It looks like incompetent British-style road safety - like @User wrote in the OP, the cancer spreading.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> It looks like it's the freight industry with the complicity of the VVN.


I've been reminded (thanks!) that people might not realise that VVN (Safe Traffic Netherlands) basically acts like a Dutch RoSPA, blaming all the silly vulnerable users for being vulnerable, and has had several problems over the years with its prominent spokespeople being caught speeding - there seems to be little in English on the web about it, but you could feed https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veilig_Verkeer_Nederland into a translator for a summary.


----------



## Spiderweb (3 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Wow, where? I've almost never seen it except where there's a marked lane.
> 
> The problem is that lorry operators should be replacing the low-visibility cabs with direct-vision ones ASAP, not wasting money putting lipstick on a pig like this and effectively telling their drivers to ignore Highway Code Rules 151, 167, 182, 183 and probably more.


I think I've only once seen it once in North Yorkshire but I've have seen it many times whilst driving elsewhere. The last time was in Kent when a peloton of cyclists obviously riding together both undertook and overtook a HGV at the same time.
This mindless behaviour gives cyclists a bad name.


----------



## Drago (3 Oct 2016)

I've no objection to "only a chump undertakes a large vehicle stickers", but do feel there should be corresponding decals in the cabs about cutting up cyclists.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4495368, member: 259"]Honestly, I think you're being a bit paranoid.[/QUOTE]
Be that as it may, VVN is _not_ a cycling organisation as claimed earlier.


----------



## keithmac (3 Oct 2016)

Even if it makes a few more people think then the stickers are a good thing!.

I can see that Lorry Drivers genuinely have a restricted vision especially for cyclists on their inside. It is poor truck cab design.

For me if the lorry is not stationary I will hang back, and I make sure the driver has seen me when filtering past even when it's stopped.

I see people pass on the inside of lorries and big skip wagons without a care in the world, shudder to think what would happen if they tapped the kerb with a wheel and fell under the wheels (even 10mph would be bad enough).

Same again, if the lorry is at the front of a line of traffic stopped at the lights, I would wait behind as the driver would just have to overtake me again putting both of us both in an avoidable situation..


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4495415, member: 259"]No, it's a organisation that promotes safety for all road users including cyclists and pedestrians and has been siince it was founded.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it's the same failed concept of "safety for all" as over here. VVN are one of the few organisations to support attempts to promote cycle helmets in the Netherlands. They do not understand cycling safety and I suggest they and the speeding motorists they've historically employed do not have cycling's best interests at heart.

[QUOTE 4495433, member: 259"]The Fietsersbond, of which I've been a member for years, has never opposed these stickers as far as I know,a lthough they're as keen as mustard on stuff like driver education and removing vehicle blind spots.[/QUOTE]
Equally, have they ever supported them? It's not a surprise if London led the way in these disgraceful victim-blaming stickers.


----------



## Markymark (3 Oct 2016)

keithmac said:


> Even if it makes a few more people think then the stickers are a good thing!.
> 
> I can see that Lorry Drivers genuinely have a restricted vision especially for cyclists on their inside. It is poor truck cab design.
> 
> ...


All sensible stuff. However it has happened before that a lorry overtakes a cyclist and turns left in front of them poiting to the sticker which they think allows them to do this.


----------



## keithmac (3 Oct 2016)

Markymark said:


> All sensible stuff. However it has happened before that a lorry overtakes a cyclist and turns left in front of them poiting to the sticker which they think allows them to do this.



That's a different kettle of fish altogether and just bad driving!..


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4495472, member: 259"]Nope, they are completely opposed to compulsory helmets. [/quote]
I said they endorse helmet promotion and that says " Veilig Verkeer Nederland is voorstander van het vrijwillige gebruik van fietshelmen"! (VVN is in favour of free-willed use of cycle helmets) - which is absurd when the same page also says "Ervaringen in het buitenland (Australië) tonen aan, dat een helmdraagplicht tot gevolg heeft dat het fietsgebruik afneemt."

I suspect they're only against compulsion until they get enough mugs to free-willingly (voluntarily, perhaps?) use them.

[QUOTE 4495472, member: 259"]What do you mean by "They do not understand cycling safety"?[/QUOTE]
Exactly what I wrote. https://vvn.nl/standpunten/fietsen seems to omit conspicuously most ideas of doing anything to tackle bad motoring directly. It even opens with the old chestnut that people cycle because they can't drive and some of the infrastructure ideas seem surprising until you realise that things like multi-stage crossings and roundabouts instead of lights benefit motorists more than cyclists.


----------



## Markymark (3 Oct 2016)

keithmac said:


> That's a different kettle of fish altogether and just bad driving!..


Reinforced by stupid stickers.


----------



## keithmac (3 Oct 2016)

Sticker's null and void at that point though..


----------



## EnPassant (3 Oct 2016)

Drago said:


> I've no objection to "only a chump undertakes a large vehicle stickers", but do feel there should be corresponding decals in the cabs about cutting up cyclists.


Yebbut, that could be interpreted as accepting that some of the responsibility rests with their driver. (and would cost 4 quid not 2 ), I'm not holding my breath. 
I know I've already said it's victim blaming, but that's the reason for these things, not some altruistic wish to educate cyclists, they couldn't give a stuff until they wind up in court or lose money with a driver not working.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4495536, member: 259"]The VVN is not a 'get of my way' road safety organisation. It's a road safety organisation for all users of the road, including pedestrians and cyclists. If you have any evidence proving otherwise (other than people having stand down because of speeding tickets) then I would be interested to hear it.[/QUOTE]
Anyone interested can browse their website, especially the links above about cycling and being in favour of use of cycle helmets. Likewise, I'd be happy to see any evidence that VVN actually understand cycling safety and aren't preoccupied with getting other road users out of the way of incompetent motorists, or that any cycling safety organisation is involved with those dodgy stickers.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> I see it a heck of a lot in London. If you think that cyclists do not undertake lorries (and other vehicles) then you are leading a very sheltered cycling life.
> 
> 
> 
> I myself have lost count at the number of times that I have had to yell at other cyclists not to undertake left turning vehicles on my commute over the years.




This guy was so clever he had to have 2 bites of the cherry.

Undertaking lorries the same as viz vests or helmets. Its personal choice. You cant tell people that they are good or bad. They have to make their own decisions. Im happy to let them. I wouldnt be going down that gap. Im never in that much of a rush to kill myself


----------



## srw (3 Oct 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> Mmm.......on the one hand big lorries shouldn't go cutting across and driving into cyclists which is the key problem, but yes, there are some daft cyclists who undertake lorries.
> 
> Provide that lorry drivers still get proper instruction about their driving standards to deal with being around cyclists, and more importantly, there's still pressure brought on them to have better designed cabs, so they can see out better, then the stickers on the back don't really matter. Hopefully the majority of cyclists don't undertake, but if it stops even just one person doing it, because they'd not thought about the issues before, then that's good. But in the same way a car driver decides to jump a red light, so certain people will ignore a sticker.


Quite. It's basic psychology - "We've done our little bit to help educate cyclists in roadcraft. Now what are you, the owners, drivers and designers of these killing machines going to do in return that's meaningful?"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Oct 2016)

BrynCP said:


> I see a lot of people in Hull going on the insides of lorries, buses, dustcarts etc. Some get very annoyed when I am stopped being such a vehicle and they're intent on getting by it (on the inside) to go into the ASZ (or worse, through the red light).
> 
> Many Hull cyclists are commuters, who do few miles a week and are not as competent as some here. If the stickers make them think and stop them putting themselves in danger, they're doing a job regardless of who they're really trying to save.


When I stop behind ANY vehicle I do it in primary, or secondary, and leave loads of room for lemmings to go up the inside. It isn't my role to be a road safety road block to other people on bikes. As a result no other people on bikes get annoyed with me when I stop on the road behind a motor vehicle.


----------



## mjr (4 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4495644, member: 259"]Ok, that's a no then.[/QUOTE]
It's a pointer for everyone who cares to read their website and make their own minds up - I feel it's pretty clear that they're RoSPA-like (RoSPish?) - and I notice there's still no evidence to support the claim that started this subthread, that any _cycling_ safety organisations were involved in the stickers:
[QUOTE 4495239, member: 259"]They are part of a national campaign in NL called Velilig op de weg (Safe on the roads) which is run by cycling safety and trucking industry organisations.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Littgull (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Nobody is suggesting that there aren't some idiot cyclists out there but in the majority of KSI cases in London in recent years there has been clear evidence that the cyclist was not to blame - indeed they have often been using the farcilities that encourage them into dangerous places
> 
> Let's be honest - these signs are not about educating cyclists (and pedestrians - as they're now getting targeted by these stupid signs) but about trying to shift the blame and CYA for drivers and their employers.


KSI? CYA?


----------



## Tim Hall (4 Oct 2016)

Littgull said:


> KSI? CYA?


KSI is killed or seriously injured. Used in measuring road casualties.
CYA is Cover Your Arse.


----------



## Littgull (4 Oct 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> KSI is killed or seriously injured. Used in measuring road casualties.
> CYA is Cover Your Arse.


Many thanks for the clarification, TH.


----------



## Brandane (4 Oct 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> Mmm.......on the one hand big lorries shouldn't go cutting across and driving into cyclists which is the key problem, but yes, there are some daft cyclists who undertake lorries.
> 
> Provide that lorry drivers still get proper instruction about their driving standards to deal with being around cyclists, and more importantly, there's still pressure brought on them to have better designed cabs, so they can see out better, then the stickers on the back don't really matter. Hopefully the majority of cyclists don't undertake, but if it stops even just one person doing it, because they'd not thought about the issues before, then that's good. But in the same way a car driver decides to jump a red light, so certain people will ignore a sticker.


Obviously I can't speak for all lorry drivers, but IMHO this current call for lorries with better nearside visibility is something of a red herring.
Currently there are mirrors to cover blind spots. The problem is that drivers only have one set of eyes. When turning left, we obviously check mirrors on the left side, BUT, the last observation before you move is always going to be to the right (when turning left), as that is the direction from which traffic is coming. You do the same when driving a car or riding a bike. In that fraction of a second since checking your left hand mirrors, a cyclist can come up your inside, especially as when turning left in a lorry you normally have to go wide and leave a bigger gap up the left.

All the mirrors, cameras, and windows in the world aren't going to make any difference to the safety of cyclists if a driver is looking elsewhere - which he must be, when turning left. Yes he is going to have another check or two in his left mirrors (and everywhere else he needs to look) during the turn, but by then it's too late for the cyclist. Just do not go up the nearside of a vehicle, big or small, it might not end well. The stickers are very good advice.


----------



## Tim Hall (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> The stickers that are good advice are the ones suggesting it is a bad idea to go up the inside when the vehicle is turning.


I saw one of those yesterday. Words to the effect "Warningo not pass on THIS side of the lorry when it's turning left." The message was somewhat diluted by the sticker being positioned smack in the middle of the rear of the lorry.


----------



## Pete Owens (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Our Continental cousins - particularly the Dutch - had appeared immune to this idiocy but it seems that they have begun to succumb to the victim blaming and CYA culture than blights the UK road haulage industry.


If you don't understand why undertaking trucks is such a bad idea I suggest you enrol on a Bikability course.

However, if these signs are on Dutch trucks driving on UK roads they would probably be on the wrong side - though I think even in Cambridge the number of cyclists capable of reading Dutch would be too small to matter.


----------



## Cuchilo (4 Oct 2016)

Even the circus have joined in


----------



## mjr (4 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> Yes he is going to have another check or two in his left mirrors (and everywhere else he needs to look) during the turn, but by then it's too late for the cyclist.


It's heck of a lot quicker just to look out the window than to check the mirrors, isn't it? And direct-vision cabs also let drivers spot cyclists ahead of the cab more easily, which is a distressingly common impact point.



User said:


> I just passed a flatbed lorry which had a painted sign on a plate on the rear wheel arch. It read "Cyclists do not pass this point".
> It was stopped about five vehicles back from a red light in a right turn lane. Was it wrong of me to undertake it in the straight on lane?


No. I overtook a load of lorries on the left (it's not fornicating undertaking - evil term) this morning by using the left lane when they were going straight ahead, completely disobeying their bigoted highway-code-flouting stickers. I probably should get some of the road.cc cyclists stay awesome stickers to cover them. At the moment, I just feel like hurling abuse at the driver and giving offensive hand gestures as I overtake, although I know it's really probably the fault of whatever company owns the trailer.


----------



## theclaud (4 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> Obviously I can't speak for all lorry drivers, but IMHO this current call for lorries with better nearside visibility is something of a red herring.
> Currently there are mirrors to cover blind spots. The problem is that drivers only have one set of eyes. When turning left, we obviously check mirrors on the left side, BUT, the last observation before you move is always going to be to the right (when turning left), as that is the direction from which traffic is coming. You do the same when driving a car or riding a bike. In that fraction of a second since checking your left hand mirrors, a cyclist can come up your inside, especially as when turning left in a lorry you normally have to go wide and leave a bigger gap up the left.
> 
> All the mirrors, cameras, and windows in the world aren't going to make any difference to the safety of cyclists if a driver is looking elsewhere - which he must be, when turning left. Yes he is going to have another check or two in his left mirrors (and everywhere else he needs to look) during the turn, but by then it's too late for the cyclist.



So, essentially, you are saying that such a vehicle with a single operator is not capable of being driven safely, and therefore should not be on the road.


----------



## Brandane (4 Oct 2016)

theclaud said:


> So, essentially, you are saying that such a vehicle with a single operator is not capable of being driven safely, and therefore should not be on the road.


No, I am saying it can be driven safely if other road users use a bit of common sense.


----------



## hatler (4 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> No, I am saying it can be driven safely if other road users use a bit of common sense.


But if it isn't (driven safely), is it reasonable that the person who made a slight error pays for it with their life ?


----------



## atbman (4 Oct 2016)

I'm somewhat baffled by the objections to this sign on the back of lorries/buses, etc. Cyclists do undertake - done it myself, but most experienced riders only do so when they decide the the risk is non-existent. However, it does act as a reminder (and not victim blaming) that it's generally unwise to do so. and there are many cyclists who don't understand how extensive the blind area are on may lorries. They therefore assume that the driver can see them in his mirrors. The majority of KSI by trucks are the fault of the driver, but this means that some are the fault of the rider. Reminders are good.


----------



## Markymark (4 Oct 2016)

atbman said:


> I'm somewhat baffled by the objections to this sign on the back of lorries/buses, etc. Cyclists do undertake - done it myself, but most experienced riders only do so when they decide the the risk is non-existent. However, it does act as a reminder (and not victim blaming) that it's generally unwise to do so. and there are many cyclists who don't understand how extensive the blind area are on may lorries. They therefore assume that the driver can see them in his mirrors. The majority of KSI by trucks are the fault of the driver, but this means that some are the fault of the rider. Reminders are good.


But what happens when it is used as victim blaming?


----------



## Brandane (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> It's not the responsibility of other road users to ensure that a vehicle is driven safely - it's the responsibility of the driver of that vehicle. Theirs - and theirs alone.


I assume you have the same thought when it comes to cyclists?


----------



## Brandane (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Is that a reasonable requirement to put on other people? If you were to invent a vehicle like that today, do you think it would be allowed on our roads?


They are putting even BIGGER ones on the road now. So I guess the powers that be aren't overly concerned about them.


----------



## Brandane (4 Oct 2016)

hatler said:


> But if it isn't (driven safely), is it reasonable that the person who made a slight error pays for it with their life ?


No, but that's a whole new topic. The courts are supposed to deal with drivers who don't drive safely. WE are supposed to use a bit of common sense to avoid being the victims of said drivers. Again, those stickers are only reinforcing that point.


----------



## Brandane (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> I have the same thought with every road user. It is their responsibility - and their responsibility alone - to ensure that the vehicle they are in control of is ridden/driven safely.
> 
> Would you disagree with that?


Up to a point. 
I can be driving a lorry perfectly safely, turning left at a junction and doing all necessary observations to the left, right and all angles in between, including moving my head about to see round the mirrors which create their own blind spots. If some nobber in a car or bike then chooses to come up my inside while I am doing that, then I am sorry but I have done my bit. There is a responsibility on the cyclist to ride safely too, and that means keeping a safe distance from other vehicles. I suspect you know all this already though.


----------



## mjr (4 Oct 2016)

atbman said:


> However, it does act as a reminder (and not victim blaming) that it's generally unwise to do so.


Being unwise in one or two situations does not mean it's "generally unwise". Most of the time, the lorry is going straight ahead, so overtaking on the left is generally safe.



atbman said:


> and there are many cyclists who don't understand how extensive the blind area are on may lorries.


If the blind area is as big as some people would have us believe, these lorries should be phased out as a matter of urgency, not have poxy anti-cyclist advice stickers put on the back. After all, they kill far more walkers than cyclists and I don't think the walkers are overtaking on the carriageway.



atbman said:


> They therefore assume that the driver can see them in his mirrors.


No, the driver _could_ see them in the mirrors, but why bother to look carefully? The bloody cyclists have been warned by that sticker he/she sees on the back of the trailer at each stop, so it's their own silly fault and if they're killed, it'll be the driver's word against no-one's.



atbman said:


> The majority of KSI by trucks are the fault of the driver, but this means that some are the fault of the rider.


Yes, but IIRC the faults of the riders are still more often the old favourites like "entered road" or "disobeyed automatic traffic signal", rather than the "poor turn or manoeuvre" which would indicate an unwise left-side overtake.


----------



## mjr (4 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> I can be driving a lorry perfectly safely, turning left at a junction and doing all necessary observations to the left, right and all angles in between, including moving my head about to see round the mirrors which create their own blind spots. If some nobber in a car or bike then chooses to come up my inside while I am doing that, then I am sorry but I have done my bit.


So driving within what you can see to be clear doesn't apply to lorries, then?


----------



## Flying Dodo (4 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> Obviously I can't speak for all lorry drivers, but IMHO this current call for lorries with better nearside visibility is something of a red herring.
> Currently there are mirrors to cover blind spots. The problem is that drivers only have one set of eyes. When turning left, we obviously check mirrors on the left side, BUT, the last observation before you move is always going to be to the right (when turning left), as that is the direction from which traffic is coming. You do the same when driving a car or riding a bike. In that fraction of a second since checking your left hand mirrors, a cyclist can come up your inside, especially as when turning left in a lorry you normally have to go wide and leave a bigger gap up the left.
> 
> All the mirrors, cameras, and windows in the world aren't going to make any difference to the safety of cyclists if a driver is looking elsewhere - which he must be, when turning left. Yes he is going to have another check or two in his left mirrors (and everywhere else he needs to look) during the turn, but by then it's too late for the cyclist. Just do not go up the nearside of a vehicle, big or small, it might not end well. The stickers are very good advice.



For the last couple of years here in Luton, we've (the Cycling Forum) have run a joint event with Arriva Buses. They park up a double decker outside the shopping centre and we get anyone walking/cycling past to sit in the driver's seat whilst one of us positions a bike by the rear of the bus and slowly moves forward as though they were undertaking. Everyone is quite shocked that they don't see the cyclist in the mirrors, until it would be too late.

It's made a lot of participants re-think how they cycle around large vehicles.


----------



## mjr (4 Oct 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> For the last couple of years here in Luton, we've (the Cycling Forum) have run a joint event with Arriva Buses. They park up a double decker outside the shopping centre and we get anyone walking/cycling past to sit in the driver's seat whilst one of us positions a bike by the rear of the bus and slowly moves forward as though they were undertaking.


Do you get anyone from Arriva Buses to go cycling past their buses too, to see how big/scary it is to get buzzed by a bus, maybe followed by some more fun/scenic riding that would help them understand why people enjoy cycling, or do you only try to scare people off of cycling on roads?


----------



## bozmandb9 (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> It is odd how people react in this way, and disregard the "how on earth do we allow vehicles this dangerous on our roads?" option.



We've done a joint campaign with a waste management (dusbins upwards), company locally. Personally I think dinky dustbin lorries might be relatively inefficient at carrying waste, and there would be many, many more of them. But as a result of working together (cyclists and haulage industry), they have adopted all possible changes to ensure that they can see cyclists, and their drivers have undergone education.

I recently had a very pleasant experience with one of their drivers. Considering he was driving a great big dustbin lorry, on a rural road, and I was cycling slowly uphill, I hardly heard him come up behind me. I felt no pressure or intimidation, waved him past at the earliest opportunity, he gave me a wide berth, and a courtesy pip on the horn. I may be very sad, but it pretty much made my day! It was great to experience a positive driver/ cyclist interaction as a result of that initiative.

Hopefully London will be leading the way on this matter. It seems that the Mayor (who I agree with on very little else), will be banning vehicles which are highest risk to cyclists.

I disagree with all the victim blaming about undertaking lorries. I agree we all have to take responsibility for our own safety, but when cycling in cycle lanes, there will be times when traffic passes us, other times when we can go slower. Are we to slam on the brakes and stop whenever there is a bus truck or other large vehicle ahead, with a clear cycle lane ahead? Naturally, I would totally agree with not passing any large vehicle (or more probably any vehicle), on the inside, when approaching a left turn, or sharp corner.


----------



## srw (4 Oct 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> It's made a lot of participants re-think how they cycle around large vehicles.


And does it make bus drivers re-think how they drive around cyclists? Or even generally? That's the acid test.


----------



## srw (4 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> Up to a point.
> I can be driving a lorry perfectly safely, turning left at a junction and doing all necessary observations to the left, right and all angles in between, including moving my head about to see round the mirrors which create their own blind spots. If some nobber in a car or bike then chooses to come up my inside while I am doing that, then I am sorry but I have done my bit. There is a responsibility on the cyclist to ride safely too, and that means keeping a safe distance from other vehicles. I suspect you know all this already though.



I think you should review the Highway Code. 

There is a general responsibility ("should" - it's guidance, not the law) on all vehicles to "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so" (rule 163) and some advice for all road users on all "*Large vehicles.* These may need extra road space to turn or to deal with a hazard that you are not able to see. If you are following a large vehicle, such as a bus or articulated lorry, be aware that the driver may not be able to see you in the mirrors. Be prepared to stop and wait if it needs room or time to turn.". But that's only advice - rule 221

But there's an over-riding requirement on all drivers ("must" - it's the law): "You *MUST* exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times." (Rules 149 and 150. It's so important that it's stated twice). And in rules 151 to 153 the responsibility to look out for cyclists is re-stated, especially in slow-moving traffic: " *In slow-moving traffic.* You should [...] be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side." and on residential streets and at junctions: " Take extra care at junctions. You should watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. " (rule 170)

And from the DVSA's advice specifically for lorry drivers...
" *Turning left*
When you’re turning left, [...] You should [...] make sure the area to your left is clear before you start to turn: vulnerable road users such as cyclists might move into this area and are difficult to see." (https://www.safedrivingforlife.info...l-driver/lgv-knowledge-centre/your-lorry-road) 

The legal and moral responsibility for road safety rests primarily with the operator of the most dangerous vehicles. Overwhelmingly, death and injury to vulnerable road users is not the fault of those vulnerable road users. It's the fault of the operators of dangerous vehicles. And there's a special moral responsibility on lorry drivers who are also cyclists to recognise that fact and challenge any assertion to the contrary.


----------



## BrynCP (4 Oct 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> When I stop behind ANY vehicle I do it in primary, or secondary, and leave loads of room for lemmings to go up the inside. It isn't my role to be a road safety road block to other people on bikes. As a result no other people on bikes get annoyed with me when I stop on the road behind a motor vehicle.


If there is a cycle lane painted on the road, I will stay in it when I stop rather than go out into primary, unless it's a lengthy stop and I could potentially filter then I may try to go into primary. But I am still not passing a high sided vehicle in that narrow space. I never said it was my role, or even intention, to protect others.


----------



## srw (4 Oct 2016)

Markymark said:


> But what happens when it is used as victim blaming?


It should be challenged. Only nobbers blame victims or potential victims.



Brandane said:


> I assume you have the same thought when it comes to cyclists?


Absolutely.

But here are the statistics. (Free registration required). And here's a relevant news report By far the largest number of people killed or seriously injured on the road are car occupants, with pedestrians second:






Cyclists don't kill or injure pedestrians in anything like the numbers that drivers do:




Cyclists don't kill car occupants:




Of the pretty small number of cyclists' serious casualties, the overwhelming majority were in collisions with motorised road users, and mostly in towns:





When the victim is an adult cyclist, who can be assumed to have a full understanding of the road, the fault is overwhelmingly with the driver, not the cyclist. The fault is often with the cyclist when they are young - when the driver must assume that the cyclist does _not_ have a full understanding of the road and must act accordingly:





I could go on, but I hope you're getting the message.


----------



## Brandane (4 Oct 2016)

srw said:


> I think you should review the Highway Code.
> 
> There is a general responsibility ("should" - it's guidance, not the law) on all vehicles to "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so" (rule 163) and some advice for all road users on all "*Large vehicles.* These may need extra road space to turn or to deal with a hazard that you are not able to see. If you are following a large vehicle, such as a bus or articulated lorry, be aware that the driver may not be able to see you in the mirrors. Be prepared to stop and wait if it needs room or time to turn.". But that's only advice - rule 221
> 
> ...


Yes, the key word being "before you START to turn.
I have been careful with my choice of wording in my scenarios, knowing how the lorry haters jump on any opportunity.
I explained that I always check mirrors on the nearside BEFORE moving off. Once moving, your priorities are elsewhere. That's why I said that I was turning, not about to turn, in my scenario about the nobber cyclist then coming up my inside.


----------



## srw (4 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> Yes, the key word being "before you START to turn.
> I have been careful with my choice of wording in my scearios, knowing how the lorry haters jump on any opportunity.
> I explained that I always check mirrors on the nearside BEFORE moving off. Once moving, your priorities are elsewhere. That's why I said that I was turning, not about to turn, in my scenario about the nobber cyclist then coming up my inside.


Errr.... No.

The key words are: "VULNERABLE road users such as cyclists might MOVE into this area". That's _while_ you are turning. 

Re-reading the DVSA advice with your mindset I'm rather more concerned about it than I was before. As a very experienced road user (car driver and cyclist) I assume that all road users are scanning for other road users _all_ the time while manouevring, because that's how I was taught to drive. Not seeing a cyclist or a pedestrian getting in my way while I was turning would have been an instant driving test fail. And that's the obvious interpretation of the Highway Code and of the advice I quoted from the DVSA website. If current advice to lorry drivers doesn't match that obvious intepretation and the way that new drivers are trained, there's something very wrong.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Oct 2016)

BrynCP said:


> If there is a cycle lane painted on the road, I will stay in it when I stop rather than go out into primary, unless it's a lengthy stop and I could potentially filter then I may try to go into primary. But I am still not passing a high sided vehicle in that narrow space. I never said it was my role, or even intention, to protect others.


Fair play to you and thanks for expanding on the point.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (4 Oct 2016)

Sorry, haven't had time to read the whole thread, so maybe somebody already said this.
A new sticker is required imo: "cyclist, do not pass this lorry on the left, *even if the cycle lane takes you there*"


----------



## User169 (5 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4495239, member: 259"]If the stickers that people are seeing are these:







They are part of a national campaign in NL called Velilig op de weg (Safe on the roads) which is run by cycling safety and trucking industry organisations.

Kids get lessons at school on how to avoid blind trucks' spots and they are told that the best place to be in relation to a truck, esepcualliy at traffic lights, is on the right and a few meters behind. The stickers are meant to reinforce this.

They do a similar thing for schools in Flanders.[/QUOTE]

I've never noticed one of the stickers, although I think two of my kids have had the training. 

The only truck I saw today had a sticker "Grandpa Frits" where the bike sticker would have been.


----------



## User169 (5 Oct 2016)

The dutch word for blindspot "dodehoek" translates as dead corner.


----------



## Brandane (5 Oct 2016)

srw said:


> As a very experienced road user (car driver and cyclist) I assume that all road users are scanning for other road users _all_ the time while manouevring,


You can't be very experienced then. After 35 years of motorcycling, I assume that all other road users are blind, stupid, drunk, selfish, phone using nobbers who have never passed a driving test. I find that helps me to survive.


----------



## srw (5 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> You can't be very experienced then. After 35 years of motorcycling, I assume that all other road users are blind, stupid, selfish, phone using nobbers. I find that helps me to survive.


Yeah, I did that for a long time. I find I survive better with less stress and have more fun with my current attitude. But since you're telling me that all lorry drivers are inconsiderate shoots who are taught not to care about anyone else's safety while they're making dangerous manoeuvres, I may have to reappraise my approach - selectively.


----------



## Brandane (5 Oct 2016)

srw said:


> Yeah, I did that for a long time. I find I survive better with less stress and have more fun with my current attitude. But since you're telling me that all lorry drivers are inconsiderate shoots who are taught not to care about anyone else's safety while they're making dangerous manoeuvres, I may have to reappraise my approach - selectively.


That's not what I'm telling you, but if that's what you choose to take from it then that's ok, we could go round in circles forever.


----------



## mjr (5 Oct 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


> A new sticker is required imo: "cyclist, do not pass this lorry on the left, *even if the cycle lane takes you there*"


Nah, what's required is a few police snipers at different undisclosed junctions each day shooting any lorryist who overtakes people cycling on the approach. Then the deaths will soon stop, one way or another


----------



## Flying Dodo (5 Oct 2016)

srw said:


> And does it make bus drivers re-think how they drive around cyclists? Or even generally? That's the acid test.


Here in Luton, Arriva Buses are in fact very good around cyclists - a lot of their drivers as well as the local senior management do cycle, and their training has always included cycle awareness. Unfortunately we can't get the other bus operators interested in similar events, and their drivers are not good around cyclists.


----------



## Flying Dodo (5 Oct 2016)

User said:


> It is odd how people react in this way, and disregard the "how on earth do we allow vehicles this dangerous on our roads?" option.


 You can't ban buses though!


----------



## Brandane (5 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Well, you could try to clarify what you are saying. My interpretation is that you are saying lorries and lorry drivers are perfectly safe, provided the rest of us understand that they aren't and make appropriate allowances. Is that close?


Now we're just being silly. If you think that way, then all vehicles (bikes included) are dangerous if people are stupid enough to put themselves in a position where they are likely to come into contact with said vehicle.
I've made my point several times over on this thread now, do we always need to go round in circles, SCP style, with these things? It's boring and tedious.
I'm in Speyside on my motorbike, doing my best to avoid conflict with other road users. That means keeping out their way where appropriate. Now I have some whisky tasting to do, so if you don't mind, I'll be off......


----------



## srw (6 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> Now we're just being silly. If you think that way, then all vehicles (bikes included) are dangerous if people are stupid enough to put themselves in a position where they are likely to come into contact with said vehicle.
> I've made my point several times over on this thread now, do we always need to go round in circles, SCP style, with these things? It's boring and tedious.
> I'm in Speyside on my motorbike, doing my best to avoid conflict with other road users. That means keeping out their way where appropriate. Now I have some whisky tasting to do, so if you don't mind, I'll be off......


It feels like you're trying very hard to demonstrate that you're a nobber.

All vehicles are dangerous if people are stupid enough to put themselves in the wrong place.... Keep out of the way of other road users.... I ride a motorbike to go and taste whisky....

As @User says it's your prerogative not to explain what you mean clearly enough for other people to understand - but so far you've been so unclear that people have interpreted what you believe are sensible defensive precautions as the worst kind of driver arrogance and victim blaming.


----------



## srw (6 Oct 2016)

...and if this thread has made a driver or two think more carefully about the way they drive and the way they come across then it's been a useful exercise.


----------



## Brandane (6 Oct 2016)

srw said:


> All vehicles are dangerous if people are stupid enough to put themselves in the wrong place.... Keep out of the way of other road users.... I ride a motorbike to go and taste whisky.....


First two points, already covered.
Third point, if it's actually any of your business, is that the whisky tasting was done yesterday evening, at my hotel, once the bike was parked up for the night.
You or anyone else are welcome to give me any alcohol test this morning before I set off again.


----------



## Brandane (6 Oct 2016)

srw said:


> ...and if this thread has made a driver or two think more carefully about the way they drive and the way they come across then it's been a useful exercise.


Likewise if it (or those stickers) has made a few cyclists rethink their intention to go up the inside of left turning HGV's..


----------



## mjr (6 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> Likewise if it (or those stickers) has made a few cyclists rethink their intention to go up the inside of left turning HGV's..


They've made me rethink my intention and decide to pass them in the clear wide bike or bike/bus lane on their left disobeying their bloody sticker and additionally to hurl abuse at them as I do.

Displaying traffic signs on vehicles that give instructions contrary to the highway code (such as many of those sort of stickers when the vehicle is NOT turning) should be a criminal offence. Obeying them in many situations would really naff up the flow of cycle traffic to the detriment of everyone.


----------



## Brandane (6 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> They've made me rethink my intention and decide to pass them in the clear wide bike or bike/bus lane on their left disobeying their bloody sticker and additionally to hurl abuse at them as I do.


Who's the nobber now? You feel the need to hurl abuse at drivers (or do you mean, worryingly, hurl abuse at a sticker?) who are only doing their job?
Hint: It's not the drivers who put the stickers on the lorry.


----------



## Lonestar (6 Oct 2016)

Spiderweb said:


> I regularly see cyclists passing HGV's on the inside. Why risk your life?
> I agree with these stickers, the bigger the better.



I'm not reading what's on the vehicle generally.I'm concentrating on what it and it's cousins are going to do next.


----------



## mjr (6 Oct 2016)

Brandane said:


> Who's the nobber now? You feel the need to hurl abuse at drivers (or do you mean, worryingly, hurl abuse at a sticker?) who are only doing their job?
> Hint: It's not the drivers who put the stickers on the lorry.


They don't put the stickers on, but apparently enough of them are incompetent nobbers who think they can stop looking properly once they've started moving that it merits those stickers to help imply it's everyone else's fault for being near them on the roads.


----------



## snorri (6 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4495239, member: 259"]If the stickers that people are seeing are these:







[/QUOTE]
I've seen the equivalent signs on Danish lorries delivering equipment to windfarm sites, pity they didn't consider that we drive on the left in the UK.


----------



## Lonestar (6 Oct 2016)

Well I admit I've done it myself...silly passes up the inside and MGIF....


mjr said:


> They don't put the stickers on, but apparently enough of them are incompetent nobbers who think they can stop looking properly once they've started moving that it merits those stickers to help imply it's everyone else's fault for being near them on the roads.



This is a thing.I watch them sometimes and sometimes try to get eye contact but nothing.Not even looking.You do get the odd good one though.I've also had some real nightmares watching some cyclists go up the inside of lorries though.


----------



## Funkweasel (6 Oct 2016)

Surely the answer is for cyclists just to not go up the inside of big lorries/buses at all? If it's sat at a junction, or approaching it. Just hang back. You all whinge about how car drivers complain you hold them up all the time. Well now's your chance to complain about motor vehicles holding you up for a few seconds. 

Just stay behind the damn things until you know where they're going. 

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV-rhiGRFTE


And that other video I can't find about how much of a blind spot they have in front of the cab, probably even with the mirror that faces down. 

Just don't go there.


----------



## Buddfox (6 Oct 2016)

Funkweasel said:


> Surely the answer is for cyclists just to not go up the inside of big lorries/buses at all? If it's sat at a junction, or approaching it. Just hang back. You all whinge about how car drivers complain you hold them up all the time. Well now's your chance to complain about motor vehicles holding you up for a few seconds.
> 
> Just stay behind the damn things until you know where they're going.
> 
> ...




Perhaps a slightly flippant response, but could you make sure you also tell all your female friends not to wear provocative clothing when they go out or get drunk, you know, in case they get sexually assaulted? After all, the message to them as well is surely "Just don't go there"


----------



## mjr (6 Oct 2016)

Funkweasel said:


> Surely the answer is for cyclists just to not go up the inside of big lorries/buses at all? If it's sat at a junction, or approaching it. Just hang back.


Is that ignoring all the discussion? More cyclists die when the drivers of these large blind vehicles fail to overtake them on the approach to junctions. Why are you only blaming the cyclists? Where are the stickers telling the motorists to obey the highway code? Why are blind vehicles not being phased out of all urban areas?


----------



## Funkweasel (6 Oct 2016)

Buddfox said:


> Perhaps a slightly flippant response, but could you make sure you also tell all your female friends not to wear provocative clothing when they go out or get drunk, you know, in case they get sexually assaulted? After all, the message to them as well is surely "Just don't go there"



That's just silly, and not really relevant. Can you not tell all your male friends that when they go out, amongst potentially drunk females not to rape them all? 
I'm NOT trying to absolve HGV drivers/companies of responsibility; I'm just saying it's irresponsible and stupid for a cyclist to go up the inside of such a vehicle, given that the dangers of doing so are extreme and well known. 



mjr said:


> Is that ignoring all the discussion? More cyclists die when the drivers of these large blind vehicles fail to overtake them on the approach to junctions. Why are you only blaming the cyclists? Where are the stickers telling the motorists to obey the highway code? Why are blind vehicles not being phased out of all urban areas?



I believe blind vehicles are being phased out, but it takes money, and no one likes spending money, or time, or effort unless they are forced to, and no one in power has the will to force them....and it's probably only applicable in London anyway... So, until there are no blind spots around vehicles, it's best to just avoid potentially being in one, no?


----------



## Funkweasel (6 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Exactly how far back are you defining your exclusion zone?



Far back enough so if it turns and cuts the corner, which they pretty much have to, you won't be up alongside it... just behind it is fine, in my experience. I'm talking about situations where the traffic is stationary or stopping because the lights are changing to red.
Assume everyone is out to kill you, and will do something stupid, e.g. not indicate then turn across your path. Defensive driving cycling is your friend


----------



## Funkweasel (6 Oct 2016)

User said:


> No, you misunderstood. How far back from the junction does the stationary lorry have to be to be your cut off point?


Ah I see, sorry. Good question. One I can't really answer, to be honest. I don't cycle in London, and where I do cycle it's not in cycle lanes - there either aren't any, or they're designed by morons who apparently just feel the need to put in X miles of "cycle lanes" somewhere in the area.

I don't filter up the inside of traffic approaching junctions - there's not the room to do so. I do take primary position where appropriate. I've been lucky too - the only vehicles I've almost been taken out by when they were overtaking have exclusively been Jaguars or Land Rover discoveries, on A/B roads just before blind bends, usually with a double solid white line down the middle. 

Let's say about 10-15m so you could not be out of its forward blindspot, if I had to give an answer. I realise it must be a lot harder in more urban areas (i.e. London). York is terrible for the bendy buses, I'd give them a massive wide (long) berth.


----------



## Buddfox (6 Oct 2016)

Funkweasel said:


> That's just silly, and not really relevant. Can you not tell all your male friends that when they go out, amongst potentially drunk females not to rape them all?
> I'm NOT trying to absolve HGV drivers/companies of responsibility; I'm just saying it's irresponsible and stupid for a cyclist to go up the inside of such a vehicle, given that the dangers of doing so are extreme and well known.



I can indeed - although thankfully it's not necessary - but under no circumstances would I say to my female friends 'just don't go there', which is what you are saying to cyclists. I acknowledged it was a flippant response, but it's also a helpful illustration for why the approach taken here winds people up.


----------



## Funkweasel (6 Oct 2016)

Ok, what if I'd said something like "Cyclists should really think about if it's a good idea to go up the inside of a HGV at a junction where it is indicating the intention of turning or may turn left"? Would that be better? 

I didn't mean to wind people/yourself up, but there are enough risks to riding on the road without adding more that's easily avoidable. That was my intended point. 

(At least until there's more protection/segregation/prosecution for dangerous motorists (and cyclists)).


----------



## mjr (6 Oct 2016)

Funkweasel said:


> So, until there are no blind spots around vehicles, it's best to just avoid potentially being in one, no?


Please tell us your wonderful solution for stopping such vehicles overtaking cyclists on the approach to junctions and putting them in blind spots.


----------



## Metal8 (6 Oct 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> Hopefully the majority of cyclists don't undertake, but if it stops even just one person doing it, because they'd not thought about the issues before, then that's good


What he said


----------



## ManiaMuse (7 Oct 2016)

It might be slightly victim blaming but if a cheap-to-apply sticker prevents a few silly cyclists from putting themselves in a dangerous position then it's worth it. And I think more cyclists than you give credit for do see these signs and act more cautiously/assertively even if they still choose to filter on the left. You can almost see the brain ticking with a certain 'type' of cyclist when they see these signs, they consider why such a sign is on the back of the vehicle before deciding to make the move or not.

Yes the majority of cyclists on these forums are probably reasonably safe and sensible but there are plenty of newbie/naive/dumb/downright dangerous and reckless cyclists who will willingly undertake a lorry indicating left 5-10 metres before a junction (ditto filtering on the left of buses which are already indicating left just before a bus stop). If it makes at least a few of them consider why it might be a bad move then it's a good thing imo. It's not excluding the possibility that we should be making efforts to improve visibility in lorry cabs etc.


----------



## Buddfox (8 Oct 2016)

ManiaMuse said:


> It might be slightly victim blaming but if a cheap-to-apply sticker prevents a few silly cyclists from putting themselves in a dangerous position then it's worth it. And I think more cyclists than you give credit for do see these signs and act more cautiously/assertively even if they still choose to filter on the left. You can almost see the brain ticking with a certain 'type' of cyclist when they see these signs, they consider why such a sign is on the back of the vehicle before deciding to make the move or not.
> 
> Yes the majority of cyclists on these forums are probably reasonably safe and sensible but there are plenty of newbie/naive/dumb/downright dangerous and reckless cyclists who will willingly undertake a lorry indicating left 5-10 metres before a junction (ditto filtering on the left of buses which are already indicating left just before a bus stop). If it makes at least a few of them consider why it might be a bad move then it's a good thing imo. It's not excluding the possibility that we should be making efforts to improve visibility in lorry cabs etc.



I don't think cost is the issue. A sticker which says "Cyclists stay back" or "Cyclists do not pass this vehicle on the inside" costs the same as a sticker which says "Cyclists, take care when passing this vehicle". It's the imperative and the implied "...because I couldn't give a monkeys about your safety" of the first two that are so irritating.


----------



## mjr (10 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4502174, member: 9609"]It would be good if the signs could be there without the driver of the lorry knowing - I think the great danger of these signs is the driver falling under some impression that his responsibilities to this area is reduced, i'm sure the defence of 'the cyclist disobeyed the sign' will be rearing its ugly head at some point (it probably already has)[/QUOTE]
I think the great danger of these signs is the perpetuation of the pernicious myth that cyclists overtaking on the left is responsible for more deaths than lorryists left-hooking or simply stopping too close behind and forgetting that there's a cyclist in front of them when the lights change.


----------



## newfhouse (10 Oct 2016)

Would a sticker on the inside of the cab encouraging careful driving of a potentially dangerous vehicle be of any value?


----------



## marknotgeorge (10 Oct 2016)

On my way to work today, I saw a vehicle transporter loaded with shiny new unregistered VW Caddy (ie not that big) vans. What I found curious was that these vans were resplendent in the livery of their new owner, British Gas. Complete with 'Cyclist beware' sign designed into the vinyl decals on the back doors. What?


----------



## marknotgeorge (10 Oct 2016)

User said:


> You get "Cyclists stay back" stickers on some black cabs.


The stickers on these brand new vans specifically mentioned blindspots.


----------



## marknotgeorge (10 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Hmmmm


Definitely falls on the 'passing the buck' side of the equation to me.


----------



## srw (10 Oct 2016)

marknotgeorge said:


> On my way to work today, I saw a vehicle transporter loaded with shiny new unregistered VW Caddy (ie not that big) vans. What I found curious was that these vans were resplendent in the livery of their new owner, British Gas. Complete with 'Cyclist beware' sign designed into the vinyl decals on the back doors. What?


It's the latest fashionable bit of nonsense for Health and Safety managers who aren't thinking straight. It's about as meaningful as the requirement to install no smoking signs in company cars or the labels on some (particularly American) bikes that instruct you to wear a helmet.


----------



## marknotgeorge (10 Oct 2016)

srw said:


> It's the latest fashionable bit of nonsense for Health and Safety managers who aren't thinking straight. It's about as meaningful as the requirement to install no smoking signs in company cars or the labels on some (particularly American) bikes that instruct you to wear a helmet.


Elf n safety gawn maaad!

(Sorry, @User...)


----------



## mjr (10 Oct 2016)

marknotgeorge said:


> Complete with 'Cyclist beware' sign designed into the vinyl decals on the back doors. What?


It's written "cyclist beware" but read "please put a potato up my exhaust"


----------



## marknotgeorge (10 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> It's written "cyclist beware" but read "please put a potato up my exhaust"


Those vehicle transporters are a bit tall, and you'll be surprised at the number of potatoes I don't need at work. I'm an assistant bean counter, after all...


----------



## Flying Dodo (10 Oct 2016)

srw said:


> It's the latest fashionable bit of nonsense for Health and Safety managers who aren't thinking straight. It's about as meaningful as the requirement to install no smoking signs in company cars or the labels on some (particularly American) bikes that instruct you to wear a helmet.


The bit about having a no smoking sign in company vehicles is in fact a legal requirement, if more than 1 person might use it.


----------



## Justinslow (10 Oct 2016)

It does amaze me people on here are willing to argue the toss about "common sense" stuff, almost like they have nothing better to do, perhaps they would be happier with an economy and modern life based on carrying stuff about with a horse and cart.


----------



## marknotgeorge (10 Oct 2016)

Justinslow said:


> It does amaze me people on here are willing to argue the toss about "common sense" stuff, almost like they have nothing better to do, perhaps they would be happier with an economy and modern life based on carrying stuff about with a horse and cart.


Common sense does indeed suggest that a cyclist take care round a larger vehicle. It also suggests that operators of road vehicles make proper observations when manoeuvring. It further suggests that if the design of a vehicle makes this difficult or impossible, then either operators need extra training, or the vehicle's design needs to change. A slogan on the back (of a brand new vehicle, remember) suggests neither of these is going to happen.


----------

