Car window stickers

[deptfordmarmoset]

**COUGH**



Suggestions?

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Oh, and here's a blank one for other ideas....

 

[Spinney]

Why not just a blank overlay to cover the "stay back"?

Because my original suggestion was for a sticker for me to put on my car, to show that some car drivers are also cyclists.
But I had in mind something more like the thing below, but wider and not as tall, so it could go inside the back of my rear window (it's an estate car) without obscuring my view through the rear too much. Just for the education of any drivers behind me...

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Why not just a blank overlay to cover the "stay back"?

I'm not sure what you mean, Adrian. Do you mean an overlay to stick to the back of offending construction vehicles? My idea was to subvert a recognisable image, much like the ''Stay Awesome'' one, but I'm not sticking the word awesome on the back of any vehicle I might drive.

 

[steveindenmark]

Because my original suggestion was for a sticker for me to put on my car, to show that some car drivers are also cyclists.
But I had in mind something more like the thing below, but wider and not as tall, so it could go inside the back of my rear window (it's an estate car) without obscuring my view through the rear too much. Just for the education of any drivers behind me...
View attachment 110972

But dont we go back to the original post, where the op was annoyed because there was a sticker on a car trying to instruct him to do something?

It seems we are trying to perpetuate the same idea. But batting it back at motorists.

I think it needs to be pictorial and a statement but not an instruction. Educational but not instructual.

"Cycle paths are NOT compulsory"

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

But dont we go back to the original post, where the op was annoyed because there was a sticker on a car trying to instruct him to do something?

It seems we are trying to perpetuate the same idea. But batting it back at motorists.

I think it needs to be pictorial and a statement but not an instruction.

I thought the OP was more unhappy about shifting responsibility onto cyclists to protect themselves from the danger presented by the vehicle sporting the sticker. The 1.5 metre sticker is about not endangering cyclists.

 

[Spinney]

But dont we go back to the original post, where the op was annoyed because there was a sticker on a car trying to instruct him to do something?

It seems we are trying to perpetuate the same idea. But batting it back at motorists.

I think it needs to be pictorial and a statement but not an instruction. Educational but not instructual.

"Cycle paths are NOT compulsory"

I am the OP (AICMFP!)


Yes, I was annoyed, but if you read the 2nd para I'd gone on to the idea of information...
Agree with deptfordmarmoset - my idea is not about shifting blame but perhaps getting other drivers to think about how they pass cyclists.

 

[steveindenmark]

You can discuss the "Stay back" sticker all day though. To me its a polite request to help to keep you safe. To others on here its a blatant breach of your civil liberties.

I think a sticker with the slightest instructional tone can have the other team throwing the teddy out of the pram.

The 1.5m sticker, although perfectly innocent, could now be construed as shifting all the responsibility to the motorists. There are occasions where they cant give cyclists 1.5m. Some driver/cyclists have no idea what 1.5 m looks like. I am of course playing the devils advocate here.

I see what you are saying Spinney. But it appears that if a motorist instructs some cyclists on this site about anything at all, it is like a red rag to a bull. I can imagine it is the same the other way round.

 

[Spinney]

You can discuss the "Stay back" sticker all day though. To me its a polite request to help to keep you safe. To others on here its a blatant breach of your civil liberties.

I think a sticker with the slightest instructional tone can have the other team throwing the teddy out of the pram.

The 1.5m sticker, although perfectly innocent, could now be construed as shifting all the responsibility to the motorists. There are occasions where they cant give cyclists 1.5m. Some driver/cyclists have no idea what 1.5 m looks like. I am of course playing the devils advocate here.

When overtaking, the responsibility IS the motorists'...

Then they shouldn't be overtaking...

simples

 

[steveindenmark]

When overtaking, the responsibility IS the motorists'...

Then they shouldn't be overtaking...

simples

I didnt say it wasn't. I said they cannot always give 1.5m clearance. There are peletons on my country roads who refuse to move over, even when riding 3 abreast. If I had to wait to give them 1.5 metres, it would take me miles to get past them. Now there are those on here who will say I should wait and wait and wait to get by. Im a cyclist and I think that is unreasonable. We should all share the road but some riders like to hug it.

 

[Spinney]

I didnt say it wasn't. I said they cannot always give 1.5m clearance. There are peletons on my country roads who refuse to move over, even when riding 3 abreast. If I had to wait to give them 1.5 metres, it would take me miles to get past them. Now there are those on here who will say I should wait and wait and wait to get by. Im a cyclist and I think that is unreasonable. We should all share the road but some riders like to hug it.

OK, point taken.
And if we're all moving very slowly, there isn't usually a problem with being overtaken closer than the 1.5 m.

 

[Drago]

The way I see it such stickers are aimed at chumps, not cyclists or motorists.

The chump gene doesn't discriminate when it comes to one's choice of transport.

 

[mjr]

Now there are those on here who will say I should wait and wait and wait to get by. Im a cyclist and I think that is unreasonable. We should all share the road but some riders like to hug it.

While I don't like riding 3-up, as a motorist, I think it's quite reasonable to wait if you can't pass with sufficient space. If you don't like it, get off the f**king road. You should be on the motorway. The idea of using the motorway/primary network except for the ends of the journey seems to be going out of fashion: sat navs seem to mean every country lane is now a flaming potential rat run, instead of mainly used by nearby residents, farm/quarry traffic and non-motorised users like they used to be.

I like the pass wide at 1.5m idea. Don't park on cycle tracks is another I'd like, which would be a worthwhile modification for many of the nobbers with the cyclists-must-not-overtake stickers around here. It's not really about civil liberties but it feels like most of the commercial vehicles that block cyclists, pass close and generally drive badly near cyclists have those stickers on. They're almost useful warnings, but not in the evil way intended.

 

[jefmcg]

I'm a metric girl from way back, but seeing as the UK uses yards and miles on the road, if we have a sticker like this

shouldn't it say 1.6/1.7 yards or better still 5 feet?

 

[mjr]

shouldn't it say 1.6/1.7 yards or better still 5 feet?

Either 1.5m or 5ft is good. I grew up with metric so I prefer metres for small distances, but I don't really mind.