Lambeth Bridge tipper truck fatality

[Arrowfoot]

Stay back stickers are merely sensible advice. They are there because some idiots on bikes do pull stupid stunts such as attempting to squeeze themselves through the space a truck driver needs to make a turn. Some are even so unaware of their stupidity that they post videos of themselves getting knocked off after racing through the blind spot to the left of a truck heading twoards a narrowing lane and expect our sympathy when the inevitable happens.

I'm sure all the 2-wheels-good-4-wheels-bad brigade who moan about these stickers would be the first to condemn any motorist that overtook them while they were stopped waiting to turn right or tried to squeeze past leaving an inadequate space or if they had pulled out to make a tight left hand turn only to find a stream of motorcycles flying past on the left - yet will take the side of cyclists who attempt the very same manouevres. Really they are just the mirror image of petrolheads who dismiss all cyclists as scofflaw lycra louts.

Now at this point I'm sure the tribalists will accuse me of treachery to their cause. In their simplistic black-and-white world view all cyclists are perfectly behaved angels and all motorists evil physochpaths trying to kill us, thus every single collision involving a cycle and motor vehicle must therefore be the fault of the driver. The only other PoV in this world view is to take the motorists side in every single case.

Just to make sure this is absolutely clear to such people, I need to state the following unambigously:
1. I do think it is the case that cyclists in general tend to be more careful and that drivers are very much more likely to be at fault in any collision.
2. I do believe that drivers have a much greater duty of care due to their greater capacity to do harm.
3. For these reasons I do support changing the law for presumed liability.
4. I do belive that the design of trucks needs to change to give drivers much better direct vision of their imedieate surroundings.
5. I do think that technology - cyclist detection systems - side guards should be regulated for.

However, this does not mean that there is nothing we can do to help ourselves - and educating cyclists to avoid putting themselves in dangerous positions is a good thing. If you are serious about safety (rather than simply playing a blame game) you have to start with the fact that we as a species are equipped with forwards pointing eyes and will be very much more aware of what is going on in front of us than what is coming from behind - this is just as true for us on bikes as it is for those in cars or in trucks - however many mirrors they may be equipped with.

Thanks. You have put it across very well.

I am also mindful that as we talk about these issues in a very focused way, the neglect from the authorities over the last 3 years has been short of appalling. The least they can do is learn from their continental neighbours in many respects.

In the meantime, educating our cyclist to be more spatially away of the dangers is an important plank. One example is that some cyclists not being aware that taking primary is an exercise in risk reduction. Being in front and not on the side of a tight situation is another.

 

[summerdays]

I saw this on twitter today:

Which looks a good step forward in lorry design. Though one of the people responding to it seems to be holding cyclists mainly responsible for accidents.

 

[glenn forger]

Stay back stickers are used as alibis by homicidally reckless drivers like the HGV driver who rear ended a rider, jumped out of the cab and shouted "I've got stickers!"

Those who blindly endorse these stupid stickers plainly don't understand the issue, people are putting "cyclists stay back!" Stickers on the front of their car, on the windscreen. It's a joke. If you support these daft stickers then you must also support cyclists who ride with a sign saying "stop being drunk drivers" equally facile, equally useless. Sooner or later we'll see a drunk lorry driver kill someone then protest "but I have stickers!"

 

[glenn forger]

The CTC has been told of a case in which a cyclist cut up by a left-turning lorry phoned the driver's company to complain, to be told: "Didn't you see the lorry's 'stay back' sticker?" It also noted with worry an inquest where lawyers for a driver pointed out a vehicle's sticker intimating the dead cyclist might have been at fault.

 

[spen666]

The CTC has been told of a case in which a cyclist cut up by a left-turning lorry phoned the driver's company to complain, to be told: "Didn't you see the lorry's 'stay back' sticker?" It also noted with worry an inquest where lawyers for a driver pointed out a vehicle's sticker intimating the dead cyclist might have been at fault.

I'm not sure I have any worries about the lawyers at the inquest.

A cyclist ( even a dead one) is not automatically blameless in an accident. The purpose of an inquest is to determine the issues.

 

[glenn forger]

Found it, but the video has been made private

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cyclists-stay-back-stickers-tfl.157721/post-3114556

 

[Arrowfoot]

The CTC has been told of a case in which a cyclist cut up by a left-turning lorry phoned the driver's company to complain, to be told: "Didn't you see the lorry's 'stay back' sticker?" It also noted with worry an inquest where lawyers for a driver pointed out a vehicle's sticker intimating the dead cyclist might have been at fault.

Safety stickers are not going to absolve any errant driver if he fails to exercise proper lookout or have control. By your logic, putting a sticker means that driver does not even have to install mirrors or check his side.

Lawyers to earn their keep will find the most ridiculous excuses.

Try running a campaign to remove this safety stickers on the basis that it provides errant drivers a get out of jail card. You will be laughted at to no end. In fact a good prosecutor will argue that danger is known and thus the sticker has been placed, yet the driver did not take appropriate measures to reduce the danger.

I am sure that you know that safety stickers and warnings in any situation even outside of cycling such at a school playground carries no weight if negligence, erroneous conduct or faulty equipment are concerned.

 

[glenn forger]

So, we know that idiot drivers use these stupid things as an excuse, we know that lawyers have argued that they mitigate culpability and we know that they offer an excuse for terrible drivers. These idiot drivers know exactly what they're doing, that's why the stickers are proliferating more than any other vehicle adornment. If you think it's to keep cyclists safe you are staggeringly naive.

 

[benb]

That's what is already being argued in the courts by lawyers and insurers.

Also, whilst they were originally created to warn cyclists about HGV blind spots, they are frequently appearing on smaller vehicles that do not have such blind spots. They are offensive victim-blaming BS. The more recent wording something like "Avoid passing this vehicle on the left" are much better, but I'd still question their effectiveness and necessity.

I saw a normal size van that not only had a "Cyclists stay back" sticker at the rear, but a "Pedestrians, do not walk close to this vehicle at any time" on the side. Madness.

 

[classic33]

Something like this? Realise its a double poster, but its a template.

 

[totallyfixed]

Don't get me started on the cars that have "baby on board" or "little princess on board", presumably if anyone is in a collision with one of these the punishment will be worse. Sorry, I digress, just had to get that one out.

 

[mjr]

Why do you think that might be? Could it have been something to do with the large scale reconstruction that took place in the Netherland post-WWII perchance?

Nah, else we'd see similar provision in post-WWII reconstruction areas of England and we don't. This isn't about space - loads of space in Holland, Fenland and West Norfolk, for example - but about political will and designer skill. So we usually get roads rebuilt to add more carriageway lanes optimised for motor vehicles, rather than more footway or cycleway space.

You'll also find that in those areas where older architecture prevails, there are few if any segregated facilities - cyclists share the roads with motor vehicles.

Maybe not segregated, but still other types of facilities like low speed limits, filtered permeability and directing most motor vehicles away from cycle routes.

The more recent wording something like "Avoid passing this vehicle on the left" are much better, but I'd still question their effectiveness and necessity.

Not much better - they're still offensive junk, contradicting the Highway Code and encouragement from highways designers who put cycle lanes on the left of carriageway lanes.

 

[oldstrath]

I'm not sure I have any worries about the lawyers at the inquest.

A cyclist ( even a dead one) is not automatically blameless in an accident. The purpose of an inquest is to determine the issues.

Until the driver is automatically blamed there will be no real incentive for improvements, because weaseling appears to work almost all the time.

 

[Tin Pot]

Speaking re inner city London:

HGVs only 23:00-05:00 and 11-15:00
Bikes only 6-8 and 17-19:00.
Cars at other times.

 

[PK99]

Whatever, Holland's cycling infrastructure has been installed without the need for widespread demolition.

.

According to this video, because it had already been done to accommodate more cars post ww2


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o