Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote in
:

Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X
across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

Could it be a "don't overtake this vehicle on the left when it's turning
left" sign? I've seen this on various large vehicles such as dustbin
lorries, concrete mixers and HGVs: as I was waiting behind a concrete mixer
this very morning I saw one of these signs. And very sensible too: anyone on
a bike who overtakes on the left a car/lorry that has indicated that it is
turning left wants their head looking at.

In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote in
:

Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X
across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

Could it be a "don't overtake this vehicle on the left when it's
turning left" sign? I've seen this on various large vehicles such as
dustbin lorries, concrete mixers and HGVs: as I was waiting behind a
concrete mixer this very morning I saw one of these signs. And very
sensible too: anyone on a bike who overtakes on the left a car/lorry
that has indicated that it is turning left wants their head looking
at.

It doesn't say anything about turning. However, if it's stopped at a bus
stop you're stuffed either way. Because they are so long you can't pass
either side in the time it is stopped.

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads. If it
was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge cyclists have
been killed in the last year because of such unsafe vehicles.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote in
:

In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote in
:

Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X
across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

Could it be a "don't overtake this vehicle on the left when it's
turning left" sign? I've seen this on various large vehicles such as
dustbin lorries, concrete mixers and HGVs: as I was waiting behind a
concrete mixer this very morning I saw one of these signs. And very
sensible too: anyone on a bike who overtakes on the left a car/lorry
that has indicated that it is turning left wants their head looking
at.

It doesn't say anything about turning. However, if it's stopped at a
bus stop you're stuffed either way. Because they are so long you
can't pass either side in the time it is stopped.

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads. If
it was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge
cyclists have been killed in the last year because of such unsafe
vehicles.

The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it is
indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close to the kerb
when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a cyclist, so as to block him
making this dangerous manouvre; as a cyclist I never overtake anything on
the driver's blind side!

In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote in
:

In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote in
:

Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X
across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

Could it be a "don't overtake this vehicle on the left when it's
turning left" sign? I've seen this on various large vehicles such
as dustbin lorries, concrete mixers and HGVs: as I was waiting
behind a concrete mixer this very morning I saw one of these signs.
And very sensible too: anyone on a bike who overtakes on the left a
car/lorry that has indicated that it is turning left wants their
head looking at.

It doesn't say anything about turning. However, if it's stopped at a
bus stop you're stuffed either way. Because they are so long you
can't pass either side in the time it is stopped.

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads. If
it was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge
cyclists have been killed in the last year because of such unsafe
vehicles.

The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it is
indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close to the
kerb when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a cyclist, so as to
block him making this dangerous manouvre; as a cyclist I never
overtake anything on the driver's blind side!

Other way round IME. The vehicle turning left should not overtake the
cyclist to do so. Worse, they can't even see what they are doing. Any
vehicle like that should not be allowed on the roads.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it
is indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close
to the kerb when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a
cyclist, so as to block him making this dangerous manouvre; as a
cyclist I never overtake anything on the driver's blind side!

Other way round IME. The vehicle turning left should not overtake
the cyclist to do so.

Yes, that's Highway Code rule 158.

Worse, they can't even see what they are doing. Any vehicle like
that should not be allowed on the roads.

I assume you mean that once the driver starts a turn, he can't see all
of the vehicle in his mirrors. In what way is a bendy bus different
from an articulated lorry in that regard, or would you ban all of them
too?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads. If it
was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge cyclists have
been killed in the last year because of such unsafe vehicles.

It's quite straightforward. The vehicle isn't to blame. One of the road
users is.

If the bus started to overtake the cyclist then turned left, the bus driver
is to blame.
If the cyclists started to undertake the bus about to turn left, the
cyclists are to blame.

In article 70,
(Adrian) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads.
If it was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge
cyclists have been killed in the last year because of such unsafe
vehicles.

It's quite straightforward. The vehicle isn't to blame. One of the
road users is.

If the bus started to overtake the cyclist then turned left, the bus
driver is to blame.
If the cyclists started to undertake the bus about to turn left, the
cyclists are to blame.

And if the design of the vehicle makes it impossible for the driver to
see which vehicles it is about to collide with the designers of the
vehicle are to blame and all similar vehicles should be banned from the
road until the defect is fixed, as would be the case with railway
vehicles.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads.
If it was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge
cyclists have been killed in the last year because of such unsafe
vehicles.

It's quite straightforward. The vehicle isn't to blame. One of the
road users is.

If the bus started to overtake the cyclist then turned left, the bus
driver is to blame.
If the cyclists started to undertake the bus about to turn left, the
cyclists are to blame.

And if the design of the vehicle makes it impossible for the driver to
see which vehicles it is about to collide with the designers of the
vehicle are to blame and all similar vehicles should be banned from the
road until the defect is fixed, as would be the case with railway
vehicles.

If you stuck your head in the blades of a combine harvester, would that
make it an inherently unsafe design of vehicle?

Stop trying to pass the buck.
The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre.

I'm sure the mirrors on the bus do allow for the driver to see all the way
down the nearside, and, yes, the driver should very probably have paid more
attention to them - But the fact remains that the cyclist carries the
majority of the fault for being there.

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

It doesn't say anything about turning. However, if it's stopped at a bus
stop you're stuffed either way. Because they are so long you can't pass
either side in the time it is stopped.

It should not pull off until anything overtaking it has passed,
assuming it was stopped when the overtake begins. If it doesn't, the
driver should be booked as he is breaking the law (and being
dangerous).

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads. If it
was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge cyclists have
been killed in the last year because of such unsafe vehicles.

The vehicles aren't dangerous, and they can see down their left hand
side (except for the blind spot that any vehicle has). However, it is
inappropriate for a cycle to overtake a bus (or any other vehicle) on
the left, unless there is a mandatory cycle lane. A reminder for the
(annoying minority of) cyclists who forget this is not a bad thing.

Neil