BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
ArMoRothair
Posts: 351
Joined: 20 Jun 2013, 10:55am
Location: Londinium

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby ArMoRothair » 9 Jul 2014, 9:55pm

BeeKeeper wrote:So I need a sign which says "Unlike you I don't have X-Ray vision, so stay back"


Reversing cameras are dirt cheap these days and would probably be a whole lot more useful to you for both its normal purpose and seeing cyclists/walkers/dogs in these particular circumstances.

Psamathe
Posts: 9063
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby Psamathe » 10 Jul 2014, 2:16pm

The other day following a big tankery thing I saw it has a "Cyclists stay Back" sticker but it also had a Freephone number for the operator company. And then we stopped at a junction so I had a safe opportunity to write down the freephone number.

And today I called the company concerned and had a "discussion" with them. And they had recently ordered a load more of the stickers for more vehicles (they are members of FORSand had recently received updated instructions from TfL). So I explained my opinions and those of many cycling organisations and listened to his opinions, etc. and after about 20 mins we got to the point where he accepted the failings of the wording and the stickers and agreed they needed changing and decided that when the new stickers came in, if they did not have better wording (e.g. more of a "warning" than a "command") then the new stickers would be returned to TfL until more appropriate stickers were provided.

It was actually very satisfying where the discussion started along the predictable lines (e.g. "I've seen cyclists in London ride through red lights, over pavements without looking ...") and then gradually move to the position of "we are all road users so have to live together", through to accepting the point I had called about and being prepared to act on it.

Ian

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 7248
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby 661-Pete » 10 Jul 2014, 3:03pm

ArMoRothair wrote:Reversing cameras are dirt cheap these days and would probably be a whole lot more useful to you for both its normal purpose and seeing cyclists/walkers/dogs in these particular circumstances.

I wish I'd had one of those reversing camera thingys on my car :( . A few weeks ago I was reversing into a parking space which ended in an unusually high kerb. You can guess what happened next: I brushed against the kerb and knocked one of the mudflaps off :oops: . So easily done! I retrieved the mudflap - still have it in the boot but have no idea how to re-attach it... Mea culpa.

I think I would have noticed a cyclist though :shock: . But this was in a car. If reversing a van without rear windows, I'd certainly want to walk around and check first.
Pete

Et qui rit des curés d'Oc?/De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques./De quelles loques ce turque coin./Et ne d'anes ni rennes,/Ecuries des curés d'Oc. - Louis d'Antin

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 10471
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby mjr » 10 Jul 2014, 3:17pm

661-Pete wrote:I wish I'd had one of those reversing camera thingys on my car :( . A few weeks ago I was reversing into a parking space which ended in an unusually high kerb. You can guess what happened next: I brushed against the kerb and knocked one of the mudflaps off :oops: . So easily done! I retrieved the mudflap - still have it in the boot but have no idea how to re-attach it... Mea culpa.

I had a similar flap hanging off after driving into a pothole and it hitting the ground. I took it to a nearby mechanic and I'm glad I did because I've nothing like the tool that reattaches the giant staple-like things to the body work.

Most reversing sensors will fail to notice high kerbs or low fences. You might spot one with a camera, but humans aren't great at it ;-)

Back to the original topic: local Stagecoach buses are applying a load of new stickers that say "CYCLISTS - PASS SAFE" with a red "no entry" on the left, then a bus symbol, then a green tick on the right. I view those as hostile and misleading (suggests people can't overtake on left-hand cycleways, which they can if there's no bus stop) and I'm quite tempted to deface them around the bus station but probably won't.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

drossall
Posts: 4199
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby drossall » 10 Jul 2014, 3:25pm

You don't need a cycleway to be allowed to filter on the left. However, it's not a very good idea if you are approaching a junction, bus stop or other reason for the bus to change direction, and you wouldn't want to try if there were no escape route.

Fortunately, riding in a town rather than a city, I don't often see much need to filter at all.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16567
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby [XAP]Bob » 10 Jul 2014, 11:57pm

Add the 'indicator flash' to the bus and it's fine.
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.

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 7248
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby 661-Pete » 11 Jul 2014, 9:06am

What it boils down to, forgive me for stating the obvious, it is dangerous to overtake a large vehicle on the left if you have any reason to suppose it is about to turn left, or if you can't determine the driver's intentions and it is near the front of the queue, or if there is only a narrow gap left between the vehicle and railings/wall etc., or if there are passengers boarding or alighting from the vehicle. Maybe there are other 'if's to consider but these are the main ones I can think of.

All cyclists, in an ideal world, should know these rules off by heart and abide by them, but we all know there are some who don't. The question is, how to represent these rules in a succinct and unambiguous manner, in the form of a notice on the back of the vehicle? Attempts to fulfil this need, as we have seen from this thread, don't really get the right message across. Any ideas?
Pete

Et qui rit des curés d'Oc?/De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques./De quelles loques ce turque coin./Et ne d'anes ni rennes,/Ecuries des curés d'Oc. - Louis d'Antin

Steve922
Posts: 67
Joined: 2 Nov 2013, 12:54am

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby Steve922 » 11 Jul 2014, 6:18pm

Is this a new development?
My daughter said yesterday that whilst waiting for a lorry to turn left at a junction, she heard a strange beeping noise and a recorded voice which appeared to be saying "Warning, this vehicle is about to turn left." Similar to the reversing warning which has been around for so long.

Flinders
Posts: 2920
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby Flinders » 12 Jul 2014, 11:39pm

661-Pete wrote:What it boils down to, forgive me for stating the obvious, it is dangerous to overtake a large vehicle on the left if you have any reason to suppose it is about to turn left, or if you can't determine the driver's intentions and it is near the front of the queue, or if there is only a narrow gap left between the vehicle and railings/wall etc., or if there are passengers boarding or alighting from the vehicle. Maybe there are other 'if's to consider but these are the main ones I can think of.

All cyclists, in an ideal world, should know these rules off by heart and abide by them, but we all know there are some who don't. The question is, how to represent these rules in a succinct and unambiguous manner, in the form of a notice on the back of the vehicle? Attempts to fulfil this need, as we have seen from this thread, don't really get the right message across. Any ideas?


It's the vehicle's driver's job to check before turning left that no cyclist is on their inside, it's as simple as that.
Cycles are allowed to filter on the left, indeed, they have to, to get to advance start boxes.

We have to watch out for bad drivers, granted, and sometimes anticipate bad driving, I certainly do, but the legal situation seems pretty clear to me. It's the driver's job to check before moving left, just as it is their job to check before moving right.

Flinders
Posts: 2920
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby Flinders » 12 Jul 2014, 11:41pm

Steve922 wrote:Is this a new development?
My daughter said yesterday that whilst waiting for a lorry to turn left at a junction, she heard a strange beeping noise and a recorded voice which appeared to be saying "Warning, this vehicle is about to turn left." Similar to the reversing warning which has been around for so long.


That sounds sensible. But presumably it will only operate when the vehicle is signalling left. I suspect most of the trouble comes when the vehicle goes left without signalling. The sound warning would help where a vehicle starts to signal when you've already come alongside- but there may be nothing you could do at the point.
All the same, I think it's a good idea.

reohn2
Posts: 31065
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby reohn2 » 13 Jul 2014, 12:14am

Flinders wrote:
It's the vehicle's driver's job to check before turning left that no cyclist is on their inside, it's as simple as that.

If driving an articulated vehicle the nearside beyond the tractor unit is unable to be seen when the trailer isn't inline ie;during a left turn.

Cycles are allowed to filter on the left, indeed, they have to, to get to advance start boxes.

Cyclists don't have to filter at all if it isn't safe to do so,it's that simple.Trusting someone not to turn left when cycling up the nearside/inside of any vehicle unless you're absolutely sure it's either turning right or that it isn't going to move at all is folly and an unnecessary risk IMO.

We have to watch out for bad drivers, granted, and sometimes anticipate bad driving, I certainly do, but the legal situation seems pretty clear to me. It's the driver's job to check before moving left, just as it is their job to check before moving right.

The legal situation is useless when in the morgue,whether it be the driver's fault or not.
I practice self preservation first and foremost,I trust no other road user and treat every one as potential lunatics,that way there's no surprises or at least very few.
Last edited by reohn2 on 13 Jul 2014, 10:02am, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

reohn2
Posts: 31065
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby reohn2 » 13 Jul 2014, 12:24am

Flinders wrote:
Steve922 wrote:Is this a new development?
My daughter said yesterday that whilst waiting for a lorry to turn left at a junction, she heard a strange beeping noise and a recorded voice which appeared to be saying "Warning, this vehicle is about to turn left." Similar to the reversing warning which has been around for so long.


That sounds sensible. But presumably it will only operate when the vehicle is signalling left. I suspect most of the trouble comes when the vehicle goes left without signalling. The sound warning would help where a vehicle starts to signal when you've already come alongside- but there may be nothing you could do at the point.
All the same, I think it's a good idea.

I think it's a good idea too,but it won't protect the cyclist who rides up the inside of a vehicle who's driver has forgotten to signal left,so all the more reason not to trust other drivers.

IME there's an increasing number of drivers not using indicators and particularly when turning left either at TL's,junctions or exiting r/abouts.I know they should do,but the fact is they don't.
Driving standards IME are plummeting and in the absence of any kind of effective policing,which in my neck of the woods is woefully inadequate,it's better not to leave anything to chance.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16567
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby [XAP]Bob » 13 Jul 2014, 7:47pm

still want vehicles to get a second set of indicators - maybe in green - which show where the satnav is telling them to go
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.

User avatar
BeeKeeper
Posts: 1265
Joined: 29 Apr 2011, 6:45am
Location: South Devon

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby BeeKeeper » 13 Jul 2014, 8:01pm

ArMoRothair wrote:
BeeKeeper wrote:So I need a sign which says "Unlike you I don't have X-Ray vision, so stay back"


Reversing cameras are dirt cheap these days and would probably be a whole lot more useful to you for both its normal purpose and seeing cyclists/walkers/dogs in these particular circumstances.


At least a couple of hundred pounds to get something fitted to my van. You can get cheaper wireless ones but reports suggest these can suffer from interference. I may still get one for reversing in narrow streets etc. But my point was I get cyclists following up my chuff and I can't see them. Perhaps they assume I have a reversing camera?

Flinders
Posts: 2920
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

Postby Flinders » 14 Jul 2014, 1:26pm

reohn2 wrote:
Flinders wrote:
It's the vehicle's driver's job to check before turning left that no cyclist is on their inside, it's as simple as that.

If driving an articulated vehicle the nearside beyond the tractor unit is unable to be seen when the trailer isn't inline ie;during a left turn.

Cycles are allowed to filter on the left, indeed, they have to, to get to advance start boxes.

Cyclists don't have to filter at all if it isn't safe to do so,it's that simple.Trusting someone not to turn left when cycling up the nearside/inside of any vehicle unless you're absolutely sure it's either turning right or that it isn't going to move at all is folly and an unnecessary risk IMO.

We have to watch out for bad drivers, granted, and sometimes anticipate bad driving, I certainly do, but the legal situation seems pretty clear to me. It's the driver's job to check before moving left, just as it is their job to check before moving right.

The legal situation is useless when in the morgue,whether it be the driver's fault or not.
I practice self preservation first and foremost,I trust no other road user and treat every one as potential lunatics,that way there's no surprises or at least very few.



I was, I thought, fairly clear that I was talking about legal responsibility rather than self-preservation*. If people persist in muddling the two, cyclists will continue to be blamed when other people break the law and kill/maim them.
You can't ever be sure 100% some numpty won't turn left across you. But on your advice, at some junctions cyclists would be stuck permanently to the left of all vehicles and never get across a junction at all, and we'd have to stop in the road whenever we were overtaken near a junction.


*and that I anticipated bad driving accordingly