BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Post Reply
DaveGos
Posts: 275
Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 12:40pm

BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by DaveGos »

A lot of BT openreach vans now sporting a yellow sign - "cyclists stay back"

Very friendly .
Psamathe
Posts: 17647
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by Psamathe »

Who started this "Cyclists Stay Back" campaign (which I find highly offensive). Seems like the campaign organisers are blaming cyclists (again) for poor drivers.

And should there be a "counter-campaign" or official complaints from cycling organisations or something to stop/hinder/counter the stickers (or at least let the organisers how people feel) ?
Ian
User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 3049
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by Vantage »

Googling the sign suggests we can blame London for them.
If I could be bothered, I'd carry a permanent marker so that if I saw one I could write under it, "Why? Can't you drive safely?" :mrgreen:
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Vantage wrote:Googling the sign suggests we can blame London for them.
If I could be bothered, I'd carry a permanent marker so that if I saw one I could write under it, "Why? Can't you drive safely?" :mrgreen:

I'd scribe "Because I'm not fit to drive" - maybe some guerilla stickers?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by Flinders »

I saw that last week on one. I was driving at the time, and ironically, I noticed it partly because of the poor driving of the van's driver..........
I think it is very offensive.

They could do with a sticker on the inside of their windscreen saying 'stick to speed limits, and don't overtake cyclists or other vehicles dangerously'.
They need to get the planks out of their own eyes first.
michael42
Posts: 219
Joined: 19 May 2012, 6:42pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by michael42 »

Psamathe wrote:Who started this "Cyclists Stay Back" campaign (which I find highly offensive). Seems like the campaign organisers are blaming cyclists (again) for poor drivers.


Well it really means "don't overtake down the inside" - if you do that you can't really blame the other vehicle if it hits you.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by [XAP]Bob »

michael42 wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Who started this "Cyclists Stay Back" campaign (which I find highly offensive). Seems like the campaign organisers are blaming cyclists (again) for poor drivers.


Well it really means "don't overtake down the inside" - if you do that you can't really blame the other vehicle if it hits you.

You can - particularly when (as is typical) they pull left across a marked vehicle lane without observation.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Psamathe
Posts: 17647
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by Psamathe »

michael42 wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Who started this "Cyclists Stay Back" campaign (which I find highly offensive). Seems like the campaign organisers are blaming cyclists (again) for poor drivers.


Well it really means "don't overtake down the inside" - if you do that you can't really blame the other vehicle if it hits you.


Maybe the message would be clearer if it said don't overtake down the inside. And I suspect that might also prevent mopeds, pedestrians, etc. doing the same rather than targeting cyclists with a very unclear message.

And if it was London ... I thought London were meant to be "pro-cyclist", what with Boris and all his PR shots of him bicycling places. Maybe just that PR and spin.

Still, I would hope the various cycling bodies are objecting to this sticker turning up on all sorts of vehicles, including those who have better visibility ?

Ian
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by Bicycler »

I thought that they were for long vehicles. It is good practice to stop far enough back that you can see the driver's mirrors and the driver can see you in their mirrors. There is no advantage in being right in the exhaust pipe of a wagon anyway
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by AlaninWales »

Bicycler wrote:I thought that they were for long vehicles. It is good practice to stop far enough back that you can see the driver's mirrors and the driver can see you in their mirrors. There is no advantage in being right in the exhaust pipe of a wagon anyway

For years I've seen, on long vehicles, signs with variations on "if you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you": Why is a new sign, instructing cyclists in particular to "stay back" needed?
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by kwackers »

AlaninWales wrote:For years I've seen, on long vehicles, signs with variations on "if you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you": Why is a new sign, instructing cyclists in particular to "stay back" needed?

Because after a recent spate of running over cyclists they need to be seen to be doing their bit. ;)
(And stickers are a lot easier than actually looking where you're going).
michael42
Posts: 219
Joined: 19 May 2012, 6:42pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by michael42 »

Psamathe wrote:Maybe the message would be clearer if it said don't overtake down the inside. And I suspect that might also prevent mopeds, pedestrians, etc. doing the same rather than targeting cyclists with a very unclear message.


Many of the signs do say that and from what I've seen most of them are on the LHS of the vehicle.

Truth is, you should stay back from vehicles.

Have you ever seen the sticker that says "If you can read the sign, you're too close" is that anti-reader? Anti-car?
Anti-drafting? Overtake or stay back - and overtake on the right - what's so difficult or insulting about that?

Because it says cyclists? I thought you all wanted to be special and have special treatment? When
I read the "separate paths" reports from the Netherlands fans I don't see them mentioning other road
users - what about pedestrians and mopeds there? "No, we want our own paths" - well, you have your
own signs now too. Enjoy.

I think you'll generally find that pedestrians walk elsewhere than down the road and most mopeds / motorcycles will overtake on the right anyway.

No one sane, IME, would even contemplate over taking on the left (bar the couple of scenarios where it's not really overtaking per se. i.e if someone is waiting to turn right, or if you're on the motorway in a jam and the lanes are moving at different speeds)

And if it was London ... I thought London were meant to be "pro-cyclist", what with Boris and all his PR shots of him bicycling places. Maybe just that PR and spin.


Why is this anti-cyclist? There is the British hobby of craving misery, disappointment and low self esteem issues that seems to double for cycling advocacy in London especially - and they have, contrary to any evidence that I can see, decided these signs mean something they don't. It's not unlike their fixation on death. I have a bike and a kitchen, and so obviously I want to read about every accident and death that happens in the kitchen.

If the British heart foundation did nothing other than go on about deaths from heart attacks - there wouldn't be a handful in the space of so many weeks, there'd be hundreds and thousands of them. If the way to stop some of these heart attacks means saying something to the people that are having them would you not say it? Or is that "victim blaming"?

I personally think the only way to fix the roads is to put computers in control of the vehicles. That's it. The fix is coming. Just remember that all of these cycling groups never thought of it or mentioned it in any of their celebrity fronted multiple page reports. I think this has the advantage that it fixes all the roads, not just a few miles of road in London where they pretty much all ride and drive like buffoons anyway.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by kwackers »

michael42 wrote:No one sane, IME, would even contemplate over taking on the left (bar the couple of scenarios where it's not really overtaking per se. i.e if someone is waiting to turn right, or if you're on the motorway in a jam and the lanes are moving at different speeds)

What, not even if there's a cycle lane on the left and a whole queue of stationary traffic? It's a lot safer using the cycle lane and undertaking than moving out and overtaking. Cars rarely have a reason to move left into a cycle lane whereas it's surprising how many get bored in a queue and swing out to do a U in the road, or pull out to race down on the wrong side of the road to a right turn some distance ahead.

The only truly safe way is not to overtake or undertake but just stake your position in the queue - I see no reason not to extrapolate your thinking to either scenario.

Alternatively we could take the realistic view that every case is unique and rely on experience to tell us how best they should be tackled (or not).
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by reohn2 »

michael42 wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Who started this "Cyclists Stay Back" campaign (which I find highly offensive). Seems like the campaign organisers are blaming cyclists (again) for poor drivers.


Well it really means "don't overtake down the inside" - if you do that you can't really blame the other vehicle if it hits you.

Then why doesn't it say that?
I've seen a few HGV's and buses lately with a sticker on the nearside rear corner that say 'cyclists don't go down my nearside' or something similar,which I agree with as some complete idiots fail to recognise the danger of doing just that.
I haven't yet seen the 'cyclists stay back' sticker though.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Post by drossall »

Yes, I believe that it comes from a campaign in London, aimed at large lorries, especially articulated ones, buses and so on. For example, this page from the LCC refers to signs on lorries.

However, the signs appear to have spread beyond anyone's expectations, and are now appearing on quite small vehicles, where they seem inappropriate.

That placing oneself on the left side of a large vehicle is unwise is not in debate. More generally, views on filtering vary, even among cyclists, including about whether it should always be on the right (which takes some confidence in heavy traffic). The Highway Code is somewhat silent on the issue, except (rather obviously, rule 72) if the other vehicle is likely to turn left; it does assume (rule 88) that motorcyclists will filter, so it is hard to argue that for cyclists to do so is contrary to the Code.

I live in a town, so I don't need to do it much; I am not, however, about to pronounce against filtering at all, which would make riding in London (for example) virtually impracticable, I would think.

If signs are allowed to become normal on inappropriately small vehicles, there is a danger that the widespread assumption that filtering is contrary to road rules will become a de facto rule, even though no-one in authority has apparently felt it necessary that that should be so.
Post Reply