- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
stickersNational Express wants your help picking warning sticker
National Express coaches wants you to vote on which of two warning stickers it should adopt to let cyclists know its vehicles restrict its drivers view of the road so that they pose a hazard to vulnerable road users.
The two sticker designs were developed by National Express and a focus group of cyclists and experts at sustainable transport charity Sustrans, which is hosting the vote.
The appeal for help picking a design comes after a York cyclist published a compilation of careless and irresponsible driver behaviour including an overtake by a National Express coach that clearly failed to meet the Highway Code recommendation to “give … cyclists … at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.
Sustrans’ expertise is in building off-highway shared-use active travel facilities, so it’s perhaps not surprising that this exercise doesn't seem to have landed on the idea that making coaches less hazardous might be better than slapping on a few stickers.
The group came up with two designs: an arrow style sticker warning cyclists about passing on the left-hand side; and one that includes a large eye, focusing riders’ attention on the coach driver’s blind spot.
To be fair to National Express and Sustrans, the stickers do at least warn of the specific problem, vehicle blind spots. That will be seen as an improvement on the ‘Cyclists Stay Back’ stickers issued by Transport for London that have appeared on even small vans as well as trucks in the capital.
Representatives of cycling campaign groups, including CTC, London Cycling Campaign and Road Danger Reduction Forum, wrote to Transport for London in February saying: “The ‘cyclists stay back’ wording is not acceptable for use on any vehicle, because of its implication that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicle users.”
One of the campaigners’ concerns was that the sticker “conveys no useful information to cyclists,” said in a follow-up letter to Leon Daniels of TfL, adding: “We have suggested that wording should specifically draw attention to the risk from left-turning HGVs.”
According to collision-avoidance system manufacturer EyeDrive, National Express has trialled its Collision Prevention System and more than halved the number of near-misses recorded by its vehicles.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Velo-drone 0 sec ago
Who said anything about "preventing" overtakes? ...
- stonojnr 4 min 45 sec ago
The bit at the start and end looks like a cycle lane, but the bit they drive on looks just like a patched filter lane for traffic lights.
- JOHN5880 5 min 8 sec ago
Hey, you 4 execs helped run a company into the ground and have no jobs anymore... Come work for us because you have great experience in the...
- stonojnr 16 min 9 sec ago
Farmer puts yellow box on a pole to curb drivers speeding along a road, and it works...
- Oakhambike 49 min 57 sec ago
£11.5k for a bike weighing over 8kg that's 2 fingers to customers let alone UCI
- HarrogateSpa 51 min 37 sec ago
No trees need to be cut down for a cycleway....
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 5 min ago
I'm going to show my bike a picture of this shed and tell it, "If you don't behave..."
- Hirsute 1 hour 52 min ago
Ex black cab https://twitter.com/KingArtAT/status/1783296299787309088
- bensynnock 2 hours 48 min ago
Quite. I was wondering where the cycling infrastructure is located that causes drivers to go 90 on the M3?
Add new comment
52 comments
Just a quick trawl turns up a stack of video clips which suggest that in is not cyclists who ride up the inside and place themselves at risk but coach drivers who drive alongside and pull in. In this video the same A6 National Express service to Stansted does this 3 times between Aldgate and Stratford.
Can I suggest that we get Road CC to deliver a balanced piece and feature the extent to which coach drivers create the danger rather than cyclists place themselves at the nearside. It would be interesting to see just how many CCTV images of cyclists doing dangerous moves are set against coach drivers doing similar.
In the absence of any definitive information I remain open-minded about this. Though people do keep making the claim about cyclists cycling up the left, without ever providing any solid evidence as to how often its that way round vs the above situation.
Personally, coaches are my least-favourite vehicles. They are bloody _huge_ and I would be surprised if the drivers can see anything at all around them. The drivers also seem very aware that they are the biggest thing on the road and many seem to drive with a corresponding degree of overconfidence. I actually find them scarier (and more numerous) than HGVs (and they tend to go a lot faster than buses).
Maybe there's a valid reason for the presence of every last one of them, but if there was one vehicle type I'd want to see restricted in central or inner London it would be them.
(edit - I would presume NEx coaches tend to stick to certain inter-city routes along major roads - whereas the ones I find particularly objectionable are the ones that try and negotiate small congested West End roads and the like)
If the sign is more complex than a standard highway code road sign then it's too complex.
Needs to be something similar to those on Italian trucks - a no entry sign on one side, and a pass this side arrow on the other.
Scuse me while I read this essay on the back of a bus before riding up the cycle lane painted in the gutter on the inside!
A lot of you are missing the point with this, drivers need to look....where they are going.....they should check the inside mirror before moving off or manoeuvring left, but a lot of these accidents have happened because a bike has been ridden into the gap after the vehicle starts its manoeuvre, drivers can't look in 2 directions at once.
Only pass long vehicles when they are stationry and you're certain that you can get in front before they move.
And fleet operators need to fit all possible blind spot eliminating mirrors, not only left and right, but forward and down, to catch bikes too close to see directly. At present such mirrors are still rare, though have been available for over 10 years.
Finally, all vehicle licences should require a 5 yearly test, to protect all road users....some from themselves.
The trouble with that is for every mirror you add you create an additional blind spot.
+1 and I particularly agree about the refresher for every licence holder every five years. Eye tests should be a compulsory part of this too. I was nearly taken out yesterday on my way home from work as I exited a roundabout. A driver in a Land Rover was about to pull out and T-bone me, stopping just at the last minute. He wasn't on a phone or eating, he simply didn't see me I think, which is hard to fathom as I was on the Suzuki (rather than my MTB or BMXs) and it's a large motorbike with the headlight on all the time. I saw the surprise in his face as he registered (late) my presence and stopped abruptly.
Apologies if I suggested that road cc. were not aware of the latest round of correspondence I the article - you were.
Also see CTC's summary here: http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/cycling-and-safety-groups-restate-objections-...
Dr R Davis, Chair, RDRF
This article comes after the York video, so pushing it out now strikes me as a piece of PR timing? I don't doubt the development of the sticker idea happened before the NE coach was filmed passing dangerously close in York, however it seems strange and a little patronising that the sticker choice is suddenly on offer.
The coach pass is surely nothing to do with blind spots as the coach is clearly overtaking, so the driver must have seen the cyclist in order to perform the overtake. Coach drivers wouldn't pass a lorry like that because they know the risk to back end of their coach. Why should they do that to a cyclist? Because they know the risk isn't to their bus/passengers.
I have to agree with many posts that stickers aren't the answer - responsible driving from professional coach drivers is surely the least NE can reassure cyclists of.
This article comes after the York video, so pushing it out now strikes me as a piece of PR timing? I don't doubt the development of the sticker idea happened before the NE coach was filmed passing dangerously close in York, however it seems strange and a little patronising that the sticker choice is suddenly on offer.
The coach pass is surely nothing to do with blind spots as the coach is clearly overtaking, so the driver must have seen the cyclist in order to perform the overtake. Coach drivers wouldn't pass a lorry like that because they know the risk to back end of their coach. Why should they do that to a cyclist? Because they know the risk isn't to their bus/passengers.
I have to agree with many posts that stickers aren't the answer - responsible driving from professional coach drivers is surely the least NE can reassure cyclists of.
This article comes after the York video, so pushing it out now strikes me as a piece of PR timing? I don't doubt the development of the sticker idea happened before the NE coach was filmed passing dangerously close in York, however it seems strange and a little patronising that the sticker choice is suddenly on offer.
The coach pass is surely nothing to do with blind spots as the coach is clearly overtaking, so the driver must have seen the cyclist in order to perform the overtake. Coach drivers wouldn't pass a lorry like that because they know the risk to back end of their coach. Why should they do that to a cyclist? Because they know the risk isn't to their bus/passengers.
I have to agree with many posts that stickers aren't the answer - responsible driving from professional coach drivers is surely the least NE can reassure cyclists of.
Just an update on the letter about the "Cyclists stay back" stickers sent to Transport for London from CTC, LCC, RoadPeace, TABS (The Association of Bikeability Schemes) and RDRF (Road Danger Reduction Forum) in February, which you mention in the article.
We received a reply from TfL which we thought inadequate and responded accordingly: you can see the correspondence here http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/04/30/inadequate-reply-from-tfl-over-cyclists-st... .
Our principal concern was that the stickers - which were intended for a specific type of vehicle (HGV) where there are currently (although hopefully for not too much longer) problems with drivers not being able to see cyclists and pedestrians in various positions close to the vehicle - are being used on other vehicles where they are not appropriate, particularly cars and vans, which don't have this problem. There are also issues about the precise wording and not slackening in engineering out the visibility problem.
If there is an issue with coaches which is similar to that of HGVs, then a sticker - if properly worded - may well be appropriate. However, most of us would suggest that the priorities are (a) there should be no excuse for rule or law breaking driving - which often has nothing to do with visibility issues anyway and (b) if there are difficulties for drivers in seeing , these need to be remedied by installation of the right kind of technology, whether sensors or mirrors.
I hope this clarifies things.
Dr Robert Davis, Chair RDRF
Only two? Oh, just when my creative juices have gotten flowing as well.
One at the back, to dissuade undertaking at junctions.
And one for the dashboard. In the style of a post it note.
Blind Spots????
Last time I looked National Express coaches were non-articulated. A professional driver should be able to set up his mirrors in such a way that there are no blind spots on a non-articulating vehicle. If there are blind spots then someone should be asking the question "Why?" and then doing something about it.
As to the design. Lose the bike, keep the eye and have the text say "Please take care when passing!" This makes it applicable to all road users. Put a bike on it and other road users think it doesn't apply to them.
So to summarize
A spate of mostly inexperienced cyclists are killed by left turning lorries in London
The issue of cyclists being positioned inside and their visibility to drivers of large vehicles starts to gain traction.
A large bus Company suggests a set of stickers warning about the blind spots on vehicles that are on the road and will be on the road for the foreseeable future.
The company involves Sustrans. Puts a couple of ideas forward for consideration and seeks to involve cyclists in their design.
Some cyclists start hurling abuse, Some criticise any such attempt at warning, some want a large chunk of the road haulage and PSV fleet off the road tomorrow.
Sometime I think people would rather rant at the traffic than make any improvement that is seen to accept that it exists.
Things are always imperfect.
Look up the "cult of the Imperfect" and Robert Watson Watt
“Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes.”
@oozaveared
When there are solutions to blind spots that can be added to lorries, those solutions should be added.
I regularly see these stickers on the back on HGVs and they haven't stopped the spate of deaths. The problem being they can't explain HGV turning circles and blind spots easily and quickly to the people who cycle straight past them. They are not a good solution. The solutions are education of both drivers and cyclists, proper cycling infrastructure and blind spot remedies.
I understand some of your frustration and, personally, I don't go in for all this them (drivers) vs us mentality - it's just not helpful. Signage is not the only or best solution, but if it can help it's worth adopting - IMHO. However, again IMHO, these signs are poorly designed and when you see the Sustrans logo on them you have to wonder what the priorities are here. As a designer with 20+ years of experience I'm questioning how people are going read all that text on these signs (or work out what that clever eye logo is all about) whilst simultaneously avoiding potholes and all the other hazards they have to look out.
Hooray for putting the blame on the victim it seems? major fail.
"Warning: This badly designed bus and under-trained driver will kill you and then blame you for it"
I vandalised a "Cyclists Stay Back" sticker on a lorry about 35 minutes ago. Fnarr.
Howsabout:
"Cyclists!
We don't want you on the roads and we sure as hell don't want you on our frigging paths either. Just piss off, now, OK?
Lots of Love,
Sustrans.
PS, We've got a new fundraising campaign coming up, would it be possible for all you cyclists to chip in a few quid for it? Or buy some of the over priced tat from our online shop to help us financially? Cheers, ta."
Every time I come to threads like this, you've always already said something along the lines of what I was going to post!
Ha HA well said! The attitude of the Sustrans maintenance workers on the Connahs Quay - Chester path is despicable. On three occasions one whose name I believe is Mark, has swung a shovel at me simply for asking him to park his van (should a van be on a dedicated cycle path?) a little more considerately. The office staff really do not give a damn either they just keep passing you around when their is a complaint. I never donate to them.
Ha HA well said! The attitude of the Sustrans maintenance workers on the Connahs Quay - Chester path is despicable. On three occasions one whose name I believe is Mark, has swung a shovel at me simply for asking him to park his van (should a van be on a dedicated cycle path?) a little more considerately. The office staff really do not give a damn either they just keep passing you around when their is a complaint. I never donate to them.
You can tell these were designed by or as a result of a committee and focus group. And why do they need the Sustrans logo on them? All it needed was a simple bike icon with the following text below it:
BEWARE!
Driver
Blind
Spots
Everything else is superfluous waffle and branding. The word "Driver" could also be removed from my example to make it more concise.
1 What's wrong with groups designing things. Getting in other opinions and views and discussing them.
2 Focus groups have a bad name through political associations but they are used every day in advertising because they work. They are the antidote to the dreaded "groupthink". ie Young creative types living in London and working at ad agencies may tend to share a common outlook that they think is obvious but isn't to everyone. ipso facto their designs are tested in focus groups ie a mixed group of people being asked what they think. This is thenfed back into the design.
3 Even military plans are trialled by what we called Red Team in the same manner.
Floating this in front of us cyclists on this and other sites is part of that.
I am glad you have your own wording. Can you explain how you would gauge its effectiveness and acceptability prior to spending a shed load of money on producing the leaflets only to find out that they annoyed people or were unclear, not noticed, too small, the wrong colour, too unfriendly, not serious enough....?
Might you not show them to someone else and see what they thought? No?
This is not an advertising / marketing campaign. These are not leaflets or posters a person will take away and read at their leisure. This is a functional sign that will be stuck to the back of a moving vehicle and be seen by moving cyclists. There's a reason road signs don't have paragraphs of text on them - hopefully I don't need to explain to you why.
It's a design isssue for a piece of communication. Much like advertising.
http://designmuseum.org/design/jock-kinneir-margaret-calvert
Audience
Opportunity to view
Message
Short enough?
Clearly, you're missing the point. Were you one of the folks involved in the design of these signs? You don't have to be embarrassed if you were. There's nothing exceptional about being involved in bad design - it goes on all the time.
How about we take vehicles off the road which have blind spots big enough to need stickers for? I'm always meet with stoney silence when, at those sit-cyclists-in-a-cab events, I ask why something with that little visibility is allowed on the road in the first place.
Dangerous idea.
Cos maybe the flip side will be that it would be easier, less expensive to keep the cyclists away from the lorries and ban us instead.
“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
And if you want to make the govt or councils make an either/or choice between placating a few hot headed cyclists that don't like a sticker on a bus, and taking on the RHA. What do you think the outcome would be?
Pages