Cyclists Keep Back !!

[cgksheff]

It might be worth researching the subject a little more.

Earlier this year, TfL agreed to remove the 'keep back' signs from all their vehicles, to request all private operators to do the same and to consult on an acceptable alternative.

 

What has changed to warrant Mr Vine picking up the topic?

[Guest sibon]

Maybe the signs should read - Warning I rarely use my indicators.

 

Anyway here's some helpful advice from the Derbyshire Police Force

 

This interpretation of the Highway Code gives a pretty even handed account of the rights and responsibilities of both cyclists and car users.

 

It isn't what many on here want to hear, but it amounts to "use the road sensibly and with regard for others. You don't have the sole use of the road whether you are piloting a tonne of metal or a zero emission eco-warrior machine. Now behave and look out for each other"

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2014 at 22:57 ----------

 

I think you should research your subject a little more.

Earlier this year, TfL agreed to remove the 'keep back' signs from all their vehicles, to request all private operators to do the same and to consult on an acceptable alternative.

 

What has changed to warrant Mr Vine picking up the topic?

 

I drove through London last week. The number of HGVs with the stickers on was striking.

[gimp27]

Maybe the signs should read - Warning I rarely use my indicators.

 

Anyway here's some helpful advice from the Derbyshire Police Force

 

Its not really about that though, its about whether or not cyclists find the sign offensive or not. Whatever Derbyshire police might want to say (and god knows what this has to do with the thread) that isnt the point.

Is the sign abusive/offensive to riders?

[lines]

No you arent. You are trying (and failing as i wont respond after this post) to change the focus of the thread to something you prefer. Thats not how it works. Ill report any more of your off topics offerings

 

I don't ride a bike whatsoever!

 

Seriously, no bias, me, not you!

 

You said many were idiots and get enraged too easily, 1. what like you, 2. I was pointing out that its not just cyclists.

[gimp27]

It might be worth researching the subject a little more.

Earlier this year, TfL agreed to remove the 'keep back' signs from all their vehicles, to request all private operators to do the same and to consult on an acceptable alternative.

 

What has changed to warrant Mr Vine picking up the topic?

 

I dont use the motorways every week, but I have seen this sign on a lorry last time I was over in Sheff. It most definately said Cyclists Stay Back.

[JFKvsNixon]

This interpretation of the Highway Code gives a pretty even handed account of the rights and responsibilities of both cyclists and car users.

 

It isn't what many on here want to hear, but it amounts to "use the road sensibly and with regard for others. You don't have the sole use of the road whether you are piloting a tonne of metal or a zero emission eco-warrior machine. Now behave and look out for each other"

 

I agree with you sentiment 100%.

 

I believe that some of the problem can be that when a cyclist is taking a decent position on a road to protect themselves, this is often misunderstood as being aggressive or antagonising by other road users.

[lines]

This is where it turns a bit. We should all be aware of the dangers on the road, and at the same time we should all be responsible for our actions. I wouldnt dream of cycling down the inside or a lorry or bus, yet in London its common place, and excused as "Filtering". There is a difference between rights and common sense. I think the new signage is a real head turner, and hopefully will help riders make a sensible choice of where they position their bikes whilst they are "Filtering".

 

I voted Yes it's clear, however... it could also be read as an order or even a threat at a obtuse push in todays OTT society.

 

We often see and hear about crazed drivers who really detest cyclists, so it could easily be misconstrued as a threat.

[JFKvsNixon]

Its not really about that though, its about whether or not cyclists find the sign offensive or not. Whatever Derbyshire police might want to say (and god knows what this has to do with the thread) that isnt the point.

Is the sign abusive/offensive to riders?

 

My point was, if other road users used their indicators more often there may not be the need for the sign in question. Only a fool would filter down the left of a lorry or bus that was indicating to turn left. The same type of fool is also likely to ignore this sign as well.

 

What usually happens that causes the problem is that the bus or lorry will sit in stopped traffic not indicating, and then only start to indicate when they start their left turn. If you changed this behaviour you may not need this sign.

[Guest sibon]

I agree with you sentiment 100%.

 

I believe that some of the problem can be that when a cyclist is taking a decent position on a road to protect themselves, this is often misunderstood as being aggressive or antagonising by other road users.

 

Indeed.

 

By the same token, cyclists filtering in risky situations just because it is legal cause a lot of justified anger.

 

The case law bit in that article is interesting. Especially the decisions where motorists and cyclists were jointly responsible for collisions at junctions.

[gimp27]

My point was, if other road users used their indicators more often there may not be the need for the sign in question. Only a fool would filter down the left of a lorry or bus that was indicating to turn left. The same type of fool is also likely to ignore this sign as well.

 

What usually happens is the the bus or lorry will sit in stopped traffic not indicating, and then only start to indicate when they start their turn.

 

I have never seen a lorry just turn without indicating. Yes, ive seen buses do it, and also cars. I really would not believe a lorry driver would be so unprofessional as to turn a huge thing like that without indicating. Arent lorry drivers now under a personal competence system where they are more culpable than ever regarding traffic incidents? Im sure ive read somewhere that they have been required to have more tests and exams for the last few years?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2014 at 23:12 ----------

 

I voted Yes it's clear, however... it could also be read as an order or even a threat at a obtuse push in todays OTT society.

 

We often see and hear about crazed drivers who really detest cyclists, so it could easily be misconstrued as a threat.

 

Or is it just our blame culture? On both sides???

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2014 at 23:14 ----------

 

Indeed.

 

By the same token, cyclists filtering in risky situations just because it is legal cause a lot of justified anger.

 

The case law bit in that article is interesting. Especially the decisions where motorists and cyclists were jointly responsible for collisions at junctions.

 

And also the part that cyclists have as much right to use the whole road lane space. Surely if the car/van/truck is already in that space, then the rider is breaching his/her own defence by entering it whilst the car/van/bus/lorry is using that space?

Edited November 6, 2014 by gimp27