We already have the Power Awesome now we can stay awesome

mtb-idle · June 2014

Share the love on the road and replace those stickers that have started appearing on the back of buses, lorries and many other large vehicles or maybe just put one on your own car, neighbours or whatever...

seajays · June 2014

Hopefully those other stickers may be disappearing too...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jun/26/cyclist-stay-back-stickers

mtb-idle · June 2014

strange stories in 'more from the guardian' at that link. Nit sure i want to click on them from a work connection... :oops:

rubertoe · June 2014

Arrrggghhhhh

I got sucked in and started to read the comments.

Shame on me.

DrLex · June 2014

Extra points for sticking it over the TfL ones that are on company vans and cars.
Would like a version with rainbow-striped cyclist and 'stay fabulous' message.

MonkeyMonster · June 2014

rubertoe wrote:

Arrrggghhhhh

I got sucked in and started to read the comments.

Shame on me.

Heh, nicely surprising in a way is the number removed from breach of rules... that then leaves a reasonable level of well thought discussionary points.

The Rookie · June 2014

Locally busses and trucks have a much better sticker, pic of a bike and underneath suggesting it's unsafe to pass to the left of large vehicles.

Headhuunter · June 2014

I have to say I don't really see the problem with the "stay back" stickers.... I mean it seems pretty logical to stay back from a large vehicle anyway, esp when it's near some kind of junction but these just point that out. The language may be a bit abrupt but I have to say there are bigger things to worry about than that on the roads! Are cyclists getting a bit over sensitive? I prefer this to one of those annoying signs that say "Polite Notice" - they really grate IMO!

sketchley · June 2014

Here's my 2p worth.

My 2p.

Anyone who rides down the inside of a large vehicle, unless there it obvious that you can get passed and through before the traffic moves is stupid. Particularly if you are going to end up stopped along side it. However, the cyclist is in no way at fault should the driver fail to look before turning left, they just might be dead which is why you shouldn't do it. I see these stickers as abdicating responsibility for the problem which is not cyclists cycling down the left it dangerous vehicles with very large blind spots sharing the road with venerable road users. It says to me in the voice of the driver "I've put a sticker on the back to tell you not to cycle down the inside, therefore if you do and I hit you while turning and not looking then it's not my fault". I don't like them.

As technology can solve the problem of the blind spot on large vehicles with cameras, ultrasound detectors etc all existing and can be fitted to vehicles to mean there is no blind spot. In a place where cyclist have to share the roads large vehicles should be banned unless they are fitted with that technology.

The Rookie · June 2014

Hmm I can't agree with all of that.

It's pretty much impossible for an HGV driver to pull away and be looking in both mirrors for cyclists that could be entering his blind spots all at the same time, it is not always driving without due car as the courts have sometimes found in their verdicts.

the argument whether they should be on the same roads as cyclists is reversible that cyclists shouldn't be on the same roads as HGV's - neither having more or less of a right to be there - and is political.

sketchley · June 2014

The Rookie wrote:

Hmm I can't agree with all of that.

It's pretty much impossible for an HGV driver to pull away and be looking in both mirrors for cyclists that could be entering his blind spots all at the same time, it is not always driving without due car as the courts have sometimes found in their verdicts.

Perhaps they need two people in the cab to operate safely on shared roads, plus the technology I've looked at before includes audible warnings so you don't have to take eyes off the road. The reason for not doing this is cost and nothing to do with if it's possible or not.

The Rookie wrote:

the argument whether they should be on the same roads as cyclists is reversible that cyclists shouldn't be on the same roads as HGV's - neither having more or less of a right to be there - and is political.

Of course it's reversible, we already have roads where cyclist are not allowed they are called motorways.

I'm not suggesting banning all lorries from all central London roads, just the Lorries that don't have the best technology in order to minimise risk. I would however be in favour of restricting certain classes of vehicles to certain roads at certain times particularly in rush hour. This in fact already happens with HGVs being banned between (IIRC) 9pm and 7am in greater London to ensure residents get good nights sleep, which in turn ironically has the effect meaning load of Lorries on the road at 7am just when cyclist are trying to get to work.

However as for who should make way for who, yes it's political but HGVs are dangerous vehicles with a known defect, a huge blind spot, that can result in the death of venerable road users. I think it's entirely appropriate to ask for the defect to be fixed or the dangerous vehicle to not be there. After all to the best of my knowledge a cyclist has never killed anyone, let alone a lorry driver, by cycling down the inside.

elbowloh · June 2014

Sketchley wrote:

Of course it's reversible, we already have roads where cyclist are not allowed they are called motorways.

I'm not suggesting banning all lorries from all central London roads, just the Lorries that don't have the best technology in order to minimise risk. I would however be in favour of restricting certain classes of vehicles to certain roads at certain times particularly in rush hour. This in fact already happens with HGVs being banned between (IIRC) 9pm and 7am in greater London to ensure residents get good nights sleep, which in turn ironically has the effect meaning load of Lorries on the road at 7am just when cyclist are trying to get to work.

However as for who should make way for who, yes it's political but HGVs are dangerous vehicles with a known defect, a huge blind spot, that can result in the death of venerable road users. I think it's entirely appropriate to ask for the defect to be fixed or the dangerous vehicle to not be there. After all to the best of my knowledge a cyclist has never killed anyone, let alone a lorry driver, by cycling down the inside.

There are also already many roads where HGVs are not allowed to go too. I work for a large Civil Engineering and Construction Company, with an HQ in London. We issue all our HGV drivers with sat navs each morning with their jobs and the routes they must take that comply with legislation. If those lorries take a route that is not allowed, then I think it's a £400 or £500 fine for each infraction.

All our HGVs have additional mirrors, sensors and audible "this vehicle is turning left" warnings. The company took a decision not to have cameras mounted as they were considered a distraction (I'm assured that cost was not an issue). All our drivers have attended the Safer Urban Driving courses where they are made to cycle round London roads. We have also attended a few bike shows (Excel this year and NEC last year) with our lorries for cyclists to have the opportunity to get in a cab and see the blind spots for themselves.

sketchley · June 2014

@elbowloh sound like your company is one of the good ones. I know there are some banned road but it's not clear to cyclists which roads HGV are banned on or not, which doesn't help pick a "safe" route. Also many of the Cycle Super Highways are on or next to major route with no HGV ban on them which does seem counter productive.

Out of interest did you have many incidents prior to the extra the mirrors, sensors and audible warnings did you have many incidents with cyclists on the left, and if so what has been the effect on this rate subsequent to them being fitted?

elbowloh · June 2014

Sketchley wrote:

@elbowloh sound like your company is one of the good ones. I know there are some banned road but it's not clear to cyclists which roads HGV are banned on or not, which doesn't help pick a "safe" route. Also many of the Cycle Super Highways are on or next to major route with no HGV ban on them which does seem counter productive.

Out of interest did you have many incidents prior to the extra the mirrors, sensors and audible warnings did you have many incidents with cyclists on the left, and if so what has been the effect on this rate subsequent to them being fitted?

As far as I know, we've not had any incidents with cyclists either before or after the upgrades.

I think, for once, action was taken to remove a potential hazard rather than in response to an accident or accidents.

Also, to be fair, a lot of the changes/improvements being made to HGVs (not just my company, but many other large construction companies) is being driven by our clients e.g. Crossrail, Network Rail, TFL etc I imagine that this is yet to trickle down to smaller construction companies who won't have large government-type contracts?

sketchley · June 2014

Yes I've seen that. TFL require the tech on all projects, including Crossrail, and pressure all local boroughs to do the same. However, everyday while cycling I see Lorries without the measures.

Some "light" reading from TFL. Looks like they are on the case, for your firm a blanket ban on lorries without the tech in London must be a good thing as it mean a level playing field. http://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/docume ... report.pdf

notsoblue · July 2014

So, this is pretty offensive...
https://twitter.com/fussellface/status/ ... 6519325696

dhope · July 2014

notsoblue wrote:

So, this is pretty offensive...
https://twitter.com/fussellface/status/ ... 6519325696

Ugh, it wouldn't have been hard to write the same thing in a less cnuty way.

"Cyclists - We've fitted this lorry with equipment to help the driver see what's nearby more easily. It's not perfect and there are still blind spots. We're going to carry on improving our vehicles. Please bear this in mind and avoid being somewhere the driver cannot easily see you."

Wheelspinner · July 2014

dhope wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So, this is pretty offensive...
https://twitter.com/fussellface/status/ ... 6519325696

Ugh, it wouldn't have been hard to write the same thing in a less cnuty way.

"Cyclists - We've fitted this lorry with equipment to help the driver see what's nearby more easily. It's not perfect and there are still blind spots. We're going to carry on improving our vehicles. Please bear this in mind and avoid being somewhere the driver cannot easily see you."

^
Nice irony.

dhope · July 2014

Wheelspinner wrote:

dhope wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So, this is pretty offensive...
https://twitter.com/fussellface/status/ ... 6519325696

Ugh, it wouldn't have been hard to write the same thing in a less cnuty way.

"Cyclists - We've fitted this lorry with equipment to help the driver see what's nearby more easily. It's not perfect and there are still blind spots. We're going to carry on improving our vehicles. Please bear this in mind and avoid being somewhere the driver cannot easily see you."

^
Nice irony.

?
I don't think there's too much wrong with telling someone not to make themselves invisible

Wheelspinner · July 2014

dhope wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

dhope wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So, this is pretty offensive...
https://twitter.com/fussellface/status/ ... 6519325696

Ugh, it wouldn't have been hard to write the same thing in a less cnuty way.

"Cyclists - We've fitted this lorry with equipment to help the driver see what's nearby more easily. It's not perfect and there are still blind spots. We're going to carry on improving our vehicles. Please bear this in mind and avoid being somewhere the driver cannot easily see you."

^
Nice irony.

?
I don't think there's too much wrong with telling someone not to make themselves invisible

True, there isn't.

I just think that denouncing someone's turn of phrase as offensive by using terms that are generally deemed to be particularly derogatory and offensive to many is a bit pot and kettle.

rolf_f · July 2014

Wheelspinner wrote:

dhope wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

dhope wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So, this is pretty offensive...
https://twitter.com/fussellface/status/ ... 6519325696

Ugh, it wouldn't have been hard to write the same thing in a less cnuty way.

"Cyclists - We've fitted this lorry with equipment to help the driver see what's nearby more easily. It's not perfect and there are still blind spots. We're going to carry on improving our vehicles. Please bear this in mind and avoid being somewhere the driver cannot easily see you."

^
Nice irony.

?
I don't think there's too much wrong with telling someone not to make themselves invisible

True, there isn't.

I just think that denouncing someone's turn of phrase as offensive by using terms that are generally deemed to be particularly derogatory and offensive to many is a bit pot and kettle.

it would be if dhope had been responding to the lorry company rather than making a comment in a bicycle forum. I would assume you have a different turn of phrase when talking to your mates in the pub compared to when you are at the Vicars tea party, talking to the boss, being presented to the Queen etc etc?

We already have the Power Awesome now we can stay awesome

Comments

Categories