Well my layman’s understanding of ISO9000 is that it’s basically an admin accountability paper chase…
Elf & Safety bollox! 
Radar19:
I asked my TM about FORs, he laughed. He said it was about as useful as a chocolate teapot, or words to that effect.
It just becomes a bit if a problem when your not allowed to delivery to sites who run FORS regs if you are not FORS compliant.
ajt:
Radar19:
I asked my TM about FORs, he laughed. He said it was about as useful as a chocolate teapot, or words to that effect.It just becomes a bit if a problem when your not allowed to delivery to sites who run FORS regs if you are not FORS compliant.
Not a problem if your customers don’t worry about FORS. Most of ours would have no idea what it was.
ajt:
Radar19:
I asked my TM about FORs, he laughed. He said it was about as useful as a chocolate teapot, or words to that effect.It just becomes a bit if a problem when your not allowed to delivery to sites who run FORS regs if you are not FORS compliant.
Not really an issue for us. It’s very rare for us to go to building sites much less FORs ones.
The-Snowman:
blueycircles:
The-Snowman:
More than likely they thought “Hmm, that signs a bit big, noticeable and easy to read. No way we can have that allowed. How do we apportion blame when they can point to the sticker and say we shouldnt have been undercutting on the inside? We must make the sign less easy to see. And reworded so it doesnt look like an order. Its not up to us to stay out of hamrs way if we dont want to. Its the drivers responsibilty to make sure we are safe”Either that or they thought “what can we moan about now?”
How would you feel if car and van drivers placed large signs on the back of their vehicles stating “HGVs must not overtake this vehicle” then in the event of any accident with an overtaking truck claim the lorry driver had ignored the warning sign. Imaging if those signs became so common that public opinion then changed to it is illegal for lorries to overtake cars and vans.
Do I really need to explain the difference between a warning sign there for the very good reason of someones protection and warning of the dangers to a sign simply placing a blanket ban on overtaking? Or the difference between telling the most vulnerable road users NOT to shoot up the inside of an hgv is different to one vehicle overtaking another? Seriously?
I credited you with more sense, intelligence and open mindedness than that bluey
I don’t believe the problem ‘some’ cyclist have is about the warning signs, my understanding of their objection is the signs styled to look regulatory, ie ‘MUST NOT’ signs. We can’t make up laws to suit ourselves.
As I said earlier it is not my argument, I don’t have a problem with the signs and think they do more good than harm, my participation in the thread was to answer the question in the OP as to why cyclist are getting their knockers in a knit over something that otherwise appears sensible. I still don’t think my analogy was all that bad.
The best or at least cleverest signage I have seen so far was
SUI SIDE ----------------------------------- PASS SIDE
Bluey Circles:
I still don’t think my analogy was all that bad.
It wasnt in the right context but there is a difference from “do not overtake” to “Do not ride up the inside of a turning vehicle”. A blanket ban on overtaking a van is vastly different from a ban on undertaking a turning hgv
The only reason cycling groups (and I doubt they speak for all cyclists to be fair) would have a problem with these signs is to apportion blame and shift it from the cyclist to the driver. They want it to make it “advisory” only. Why cycling groups are so hell bent on not making cyclists accountable is beyond me but I do know its this type of thing that causes a lot of the animosity towards cyclists. I cant for the life of me think of a legitimate reason as to why they would have a problem with the wording other than to stop any blame being given. Im all for protecting cyclists but there has to come a time when enough is enough and its time to say “wait a minute, cyclists need to start being more careful rather than blaming everyone else and expecting everyone else to look out for them”. Why they have a problem with anything to protect cyclists from turning hgvs is a mystery. Id have thought they would want more, not less.
I know there are plenty of decent cyclists on the road (more than the amount of idiots probably to be fair) but unfortunately some people see “not telling me I cant” as “well its ok to do it then”. I know what you mean about the wording and I agree. It cant be made up on the spot but look at our resident hgv hating stalker roaduser66 as a prime example. He keeps telling us filtering is fine as its not illegal. He cant see that not being illegal isnt the same as being safe which is whats happening here. If there is no sign to say “do not undertake a turning hgv” then you will always get the odd cyclist so oblivious to the danger they will just see a gap and go for it.
Well said Mr Snowman.
peterm:
Well said Mr Snowman.
Gets my vote too. The original planners of cycle lanes obviously didn’t consider all the ramifications. If the middle view had been taken, you may well now see give way signs in cycle lanes at junctions. Congestion is best eased by allowing (ICE/electric vehicles) traffic to flow imo.
Evil8Beezle:
So Snowy, which are you?
Nope…sorry…you can’t do it like that.
One glass has green writing on it, the other has red. That’s clearly auto-suggestive at persuading one to choose the half full glass. If yer gonna use green and red writing then, you have to follow the correct protocol and let readers know of the possible bias. I’m sure there’s some blurb on it somewhere in H&S, fire regs or maritime shipping law.
Dear BBC, when oh when… yadder yadder yadder…
Bluey Circles:
The-Snowman:
blueycircles:
The-Snowman:
The best or at least cleverest signage I have seen so far was
SUI SIDE ----------------------------------- PASS SIDE
I remember following a Brian Harris trailer with:
<—Mickey Taker Overtaker—>
On his crash bar that made me smile.
<— Undertakers Overtakers—>
Typical truck driver replies on this thread.
“I’ve got a yellow sticker on back of my truck, Iam in the right”
I came across an artic yesterday parked outside a newsagents yesterday in a cycle lane whilst the driver was probably buying a comic and 6 cans of red bull to get through his 15 hour shift.
The trailer had a sticker on the back stating “cyclists stay back”
Why should they stay back, he was blocking their path and arrogantly giving a message through a badly designed sticker to STAY BACK.
So what you are all saying if a truck comes to a standstill and a cyclist approaches, the cyclist has to also come to a standstill regardless what the truck is doing!!
Because a sticker on a truck instructs…,
CYCLISTS STAY BACK
chester:
Typical truck driver replies on this thread.
“I’ve got a yellow sticker on back of my truck, Iam in the right”
I came across an artic yesterday parked outside a newsagents yesterday in a cycle lane whilst the driver was probably buying a comic and 6 cans of red bull to get through his 15 hour shift.
The trailer had a sticker on the back stating “cyclists stay back”
Why should they stay back, he was blocking their path and arrogantly giving a message through a badly designed sticker to STAY BACK.
So what you are all saying if a truck comes to a standstill and a cyclist approaches, the cyclist has to also come to a standstill regardless what the truck is doing!!
Because a sticker on a truck instructs…,
CYCLISTS STAY BACK
chester:
Typical truck driver replies on this thread.
“I’ve got a yellow sticker on back of my truck, Iam in the right”
I came across an artic yesterday parked outside a newsagents yesterday in a cycle lane whilst the driver was probably buying a comic and 6 cans of red bull to get through his 15 hour shift.
The trailer had a sticker on the back stating “cyclists stay back”
Why should they stay back, he was blocking their path and arrogantly giving a message through a badly designed sticker to STAY BACK.
So what you are all saying if a truck comes to a standstill and a cyclist approaches, the cyclist has to also come to a standstill regardless what the truck is doing!!
Because a sticker on a truck instructs…,
CYCLISTS STAY BACK
Errr no Chester my old HGV hating chum, I don’t think any right minded driver would think that at all. 
Fixed it for you all, no need to thank me.
steve hoad from hydro cleansing said hell will freeze over before he takes the signs down,fair play to him,who the hell are fors anyway,another idiot civil group who hate lorries[like brake] sick and tired of these cycle groups bleating about things like this,they should be concentrating on courses educating/teaching their members on road safety rather than keep having a pop at haulage,they can have their little protests in London highlighting cyclists problems but sooner or later haulage companies will say enough is enough and hopefully start fighting back,for the record I do have a real dislike of cyclists,if they are using a bike to get to work I do not have a problem with that,its these lycra louts who think they own the road I have a problem with,you see them all times of the day,dont these people have jobs to go to
F-reds:
chester:
Typical truck driver replies on this thread.
“I’ve got a yellow sticker on back of my truck, Iam in the right”
I came across an artic yesterday parked outside a newsagents yesterday in a cycle lane whilst the driver was probably buying a comic and 6 cans of red bull to get through his 15 hour shift.
The trailer had a sticker on the back stating “cyclists stay back”
Why should they stay back, he was blocking their path and arrogantly giving a message through a badly designed sticker to STAY BACK.
So what you are all saying if a truck comes to a standstill and a cyclist approaches, the cyclist has to also come to a standstill regardless what the truck is doing!!
Because a sticker on a truck instructs…,
CYCLISTS STAY BACKErrr no Chester my old HGV hating chum, I don’t think any right minded driver would think that at all.
a cyclist should do what a majority of people do,if you see a vehicle parked, irrelevant of what type,you overtake[providing its safe to do so]its not rocket science,but if you want to stop behind him/her and make yourself look an idiot that’s your call,if you are an hgv driver chester then fair enough,if not stay off this site and go on a cycling forum where you can bleat about hgvs to your hearts content
I must be missing something here. A group of people that are practically accusing truckers of being outright net killers of cyclists (which is probably true, as I don’t know of any truckers being killed by cyclists!)
…
You’d think that the bolder, easier to read, and more brightly lit the warning signs on the back were - the better for the errant cyclist who clearly didn’t consider that the truck he’s undertaking - might be about to turn left…
OR is there an unmentioned danger here… That in reality - there are far too many cyclists on the road in London in particular - whom have never passed a test, don’t speak enough English to read our road signs, don’t know our road etiquette, nor our laws - and expect the other traffic to automatically see them and give way when appropriate… Add that to the same type of person driving the truck as well - and it’s a recipe for disaster.
Can’t say that though - THERE is the real “political correctness gone mad.” 
ajt:
Radar19:
I asked my TM about FORs, he laughed. He said it was about as useful as a chocolate teapot, or words to that effect.It just becomes a bit if a problem when your not allowed to delivery to sites who run FORS regs if you are not FORS compliant.
If all hauliers would stick together and say NO to FORS it would soon see and end to it. Would love to see the faces on the building sites that demand FORS compliance when their materials stock runs out and the works come to a stop because hauliers have boycotted FORS!
Suprised the RHA doesnt say much about this!
Show me a cyclist with common sense and good road awareness, and l’ll show you a mouse with elephants balls.