Brakes vehicle cyclist signage...Strongly worded letter?

@brakesfood

That blind spot sticker needs a further one, "Our drivers are not competent" just below it. Or "we set unreasonable routes so our drivers are rushed."

Just ignore it, its not a legally enforcable sign is it. I agree it ****ing stupid and very lazy, but it wouldn't absolve them of anything in court. Remind the driver of that if they have a pop at you.

Or spray paint it black, if they're not using thier mirrors they won't see you doing it....

I saw one of those vans a couple of days ago and thought it was a good idea. I cycle in town and am amazed how some cyclists are unaware that they are putting themselves in a blind spot.
But those signs "if you can't see my mirrors I can't see you" should be supplemented with "and I'm too mean to spend £60 on a dashcam"

I get the sentiment but why in anyone's world would you not want to discourage going up the inside of vehicles like that.

Friends have lost partners due to taking that path.
It's somewhere I don't take chances.

If making out you should not going up the inside saves one life...I'm ok with the slight delay it would cause.

I don't blame the driver, it's the company making the decision. It was bad enough when I got my last van that has a 'Cyclist Stay Back' sign, luckily guidance had changed so I was allowed to rip it off and replaced it with a Cyclists are awesome sticker!

I get the sentiment but why in anyone’s world would you not want to discourage going up the inside of vehicles like that.

Exactly.

Surely going up the inside depends on the situation, a straight road with a dashed cycle lane, how many of us would stop? If it was a warning/exclamation (rather than prohibiting it) that came on at 20mph and below, and blinked with the indicator, I think that would be more effective.

I would like to think that with a device like that, it comes with some sort of driver/proximity aid to alert them of movement alongside the vehicle.

Road markings funnel cyclists up the inside to the 'bike box' at the front. That can be a bad place to be if the lights change and you're not reached the box and the vehicle next to you is about to turn left.
Arguably the road markings create the situation, esp. with new cyclists who aren't aware of the dangers.

Isn't it just an illuminated version of the sign that is on countless other vehicles? If you can cope with a non illuminated version without contacting the ceo of the company then what difference do a few leds make?

This is yet another example of the ways in which safety on the roads has become framed as the responsibility of victims rather than perpetrators. If a driver can’t see what is in his or her way when making a manoeuvre he or she shouldn’t make that manoeuvre. If a vehicle has a blind spot which renders this impossible, that vehicle shouldn’t be on the road.

There’s a wealth of evidence from multiple contexts that information signs, such as this kind of thing, do little to nothing to change behaviour - getting side-swiped by a truck is not a knowledge-deficit problem. Signs like this perpetuate a situation that normalises the imposition of road danger on people riding bikes, while doing nothing to address the problem.

So they can afford to pay out for a nice flashing sign but not for a camera and screen which would remove the blindspot?

I get the sentiment but why in anyone’s world would you not want to discourage going up the inside of vehicles like that.

I dont even get the sentiment tbh. Dont do it. Its daft

No issues with that from me...aware we aren't really liked on the road but there are quite a few bikers who don't do any favours to cyclists/road users (same with car drivers, etc.). If it helps raise awareness to get cyclists considering if it is sensible to pass on the inside then it is all good. For those who don't bother about that now, then it won't make any odds to them.

It is sad that we are getting to the point where everything that might be dangerous needs to be flagged to make sure people are aware they need to do some thinking...

I get the sentiment but why in anyone’s world would you not want to discourage going up the inside of vehicles like that.

+1

Some cyclists are brainless and lazy too without an understanding of potential consequences of seeing a gap and going for it.

Dont do it. Its daft

Whats daft? Filtering in traffic or going up the inside when a vehicle is turning? These are two different things.

Like someone up there said if it only came on when the vehicle was making a left turn maneuver then I can see the point, but to be illuminated at all times is not right, and is at odds with the law/highway code.

Signs like this also have the potential to make the driver lazy. they just think that as they have a sign, they no longer need to bother checking. The onus should always be on the bigger vehicle to not smash the smaller ones.

I don't mind the sign as an additional warning that the vehicle is turning, but to say cyclist should NEVER go up the inside is just wrong.

Interesting range of views :). I'll save myself the effort of emailing them!!

Potentially more hazardous for a cyclist to switch to the offside to pass the van, with potential for being taken out by kamikazi delivery mopeds or putting yourself into oncoming traffic, versus passing on the left if there is no foreseeable risk that the gap is going to close

It’s not aimed at informed cyclists who understand the Highway Code and also how to cycle safely in various scenarios.

Informed cyclists may find it patronising, others with less Road sense might well be very grateful for it

Which year was it they had all those cyclist Deaths in London during the December? was it 2014?

something like 12 people died in a very short space of time just in central London...
IIRC a fair few of those were Vans and goods vehicle pinning riders to railings when turning left. That was kind of the trigger for all the LH bike stickers on various vehicles that operate in town/city centres.

It's not the worst thing in that it is highlighting an actual, real danger.
Admittedly it's done more to try and protect the business from liability, in a "Look we tried to highlight a risk" sort of way, it's clunky and perhaps the graphic/visual design seems a bit 'aggressive' but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing as such.

Illuminated signs seem a bit much, and might not quite be legal as they're easily confused with Brake/turning signals or some sort of Fog light or something(?), but it's the same largely positive intent behind fitting them...

Isn’t it just an illuminated version of the sign that is on countless other vehicles? If you can cope with a non illuminated version without contacting the ceo of the company then what difference do a few leds make?

agree - and if the non illuminated version didnt elicit the same response, I guess it proves the LEDs are in fact needed.

I'm not a fan of the "prohibited" diagramatic message, but "cycists please take care when legally filtering past to the left and make your own judgement on the safety of the manouever based on road layout and other external factors" becomes a bit hard to read, even at 10mph.

Maybe there should be a light that flashes when the vehicle is actually about to make a left turn. To avoid confusion, make it a different colour from the red brake lights. How about orange?

I'm kinda surprised that sign is allowed. Surely it looks too much like a real road sign to be permissible?

The thing is, that doesn't imply at all to me "don't pass on the left" - it just says "no cycling".

My life is too precious to me to filter up the inside of any vehicle. I’ll overtake and filter on the outside like a car or motorcycle would thanks. Feel free to disagree it’s your life and your trust others at stake.

No issues from me. I know how to handle trucks, I'm not going to be offended by it. A lot of people are seriously brainless, and some of those ride bikes. Not only that, but chances are they won't have had any training and may not have had much experience. We all know idiot teenagers who are over-confident - I was one once, perhaps some of them are even you kids. If you were there would you remind them not to go up the inside of the truck? That's all that sign is doing.

I’m kinda surprised that sign is allowed. Surely it looks too much like a real road sign to be permissible?

That's a fair point. Years ago Howies did a keep right sign courier bag that was too close to a real sign, which they had to change.

cycists please take care when legally filtering past to the left and make your own judgement on the safety of the manouever based on road layout and other external factors” becomes a bit hard to read, even at 10mph.

True, but a triangle or parachuting melon (exclamation mark) would achieve that, and use much less LEDs 🤗

No issues from me, either. My daughter now lives in London, and rides Santander bikes semi-frequently. She hasn't had any cycling training, and has never really used a bike regularly. If this sign makes her stop and think I'm fine with it. (And yes: I have told her more than once that she should be very careful around larger vehicles, particularly on the inside).

There are new (EU, hence why we haven't heard about them) rules that have come in for those signs in the last year so they work a little differently to what they used to. They have to flash when indicating left and must be illuminated at speeds below 30kph to try and prevent riders sneaking up the inside. Before they just had to work with the indicators but a lot of the manufacturers went above that standard. Don't forget that even as in the picture above when turning right the tail can swing a fair amount to the left, putting cyclists in danger of being swiped. Not so much of an issue on that 7.5t truck but on larger trucks it can swing out a metre or more on a tight turn. The one on that truck probably doesn't have the speed signal connected so they default to always on.

The van is a 7t Iveco and has some of the best mirrors in the business for visibility so it’s not as though it’s hard to spot cyclists.

A cyclist can disappear pretty much anywhere around a truck, even one fitted with loads of mirrors and cameras. Until you've sat in a cab and had someone walk round it you don't realise how easy it is to just vanish. The driver should always be aware of their surroundings but it's scary how easily a pedestrian/cyclist can unwittingly do the exact movement to vanish while the driver is doing their observations. The worst by far though are the E-scooters which are a genuine risk around large vehicles due to them being no more visible than a pedestrian but moving as fast as a bike.

Don't forget that us lot on here are, on the whole, aware of the dangers and ride accordingly. An awful lot of the general public have no idea that their actions are putting them in severe danger when riding around big vehicles and these warning signals have to cater for them.

Perhaps I'm mis-remembering; but haven't the majority of incidents been caused by lorries failing to pass cyclists before turning, rather than cyclists being caught out filtering on the inside?

A cyclist can disappear pretty much anywhere around a truck, even one fitted with loads of mirrors and cameras. Until you’ve sat in a cab and had someone walk round it you don’t realise how easy it is to just vanish

Agreed, I've driven rigid and articulated and you can lose a whole group in the blindspots. My photo is bit deceiving, this is a panel van cab and a fairly modest box on the back, it's built for weight not volume and its smaller than your average 3.5t furniture van.

Still had blind spots but the left is well covered until you move about 2 metres away from the side of the body. In any close squishing scenario the driver will be able to see you if they choose to check.

I understand the sentiment and I understand that it's the drivers responsibility but I see way too many less experienced cyclists going up the inside of a lorry that is clearly both indicating and starting the turn.  It's completely insane.  Accidents are usually a combination of things going wrong so anything you can do to reduces those things going wrong is good in my view.  It doesn't matter whose fault it was if your dead

TBH a strongly worded letter to the council / gov / traffic lobbying groups to stop painting lines on the road up the left as if its actually safe infrastructure.

Unless its hard barriered its a waste of paint and is giving the wrong message to inexperienced cyclists.

something like 12 people died in a very short space of time just in central London…
IIRC a fair few of those were Vans and goods vehicle pinning riders to railings when turning left

Yes, I remember reading about those. And seeing someone on a shopper, wobbling up the inside of a lorry at a junction absolutely makes my stomach churn with fear. But people still do it!

So if these signs stop a few of those people making dangerous manoeuvres like that then great. I'd expect that knowledgeable and experienced cyclists will still be able to assess the situation for themselves and make a sensible call regardless of what the sign is telling them to do.

Having seen the risks even experienced cyclists will take, I thing anything highlighting potential danger is a good thing.

Just last week someone I ride with posted a video where 'a van driver nearly took him out' which naturally I watched. His complaint was the van driver had 'stopped him from getting past' then 'turned in on him'. He was trying to pass a LWB sprinter on the inside in traffic moving at between 10-15mph on a fairly narrow town centre road. When he did make his move he darted up the inside of the van which was now indicating left and nearly got taken out as the van started to turn into the car park it was indicating to enter.

This is exactly the sort of cycling behavour that every effort must be taken to change. The willingnes to squeaze along the inside of a long vehicle going anything other than a crawl to a junction is something that needs to change. As a driver, it worries me when people do it. As a cyclist I recognise I am squishy and just don't do it!

Like someone up there said if it only came on when the vehicle was making a left turn maneuver then I can see the point, but to be illuminated at all times is not right, and is at odds with the law/highway code.

Signs like this also have the potential to make the driver lazy. they just think that as they have a sign, they no longer need to bother checking. The onus should always be on the bigger vehicle to not smash the smaller ones.

I don’t mind the sign as an additional warning that the vehicle is turning, but to say cyclist should NEVER go up the inside is just wrong.

Well said sir.

I get the sentiment but why in anyone’s world would you not want to discourage going up the inside of vehicles like that.

Because it shifts the responsibility onto the wrong person.

Don't get me wrong, I avoid the nearside of hgvs like the plague, and tell my kids never to undertake/ filter vehicles at lights unless they are 200% sure that they will get there before the vehicle moves.

But in reality it shouldn't be our responsibility. It should be the drivers'.
Sending out the message quoted will make drivers even less likely to protect other road users.

If you could make that led sign invisible to all road users except cyclists, and if the lorry driver was unaware that it existed, then fine, I'd be in favour. But otherwise no.

Yeah, it's always the cyclist's fault
My favourite bit on my commute, where often something will overtake me, then turn left at the roundabout, when I'm going 30mph down the hill leading to it.. Heaven help me if I use the cycle lane as designed and "filter" down the left! (AND, even if they are going straight on there, nearly EVERY SINGLE CAR drives on the red paint on the last few metres! Like steering is so damn difficult)
This:

Also. Bad cyclist!

Because it shifts the responsibility onto the wrong person.

Does it?

Are there not warning signs and alert bleepers and lights and stuff inside the cab?

If the sign makes you mentally pause and question if going up the inside is a sensible thing to do then I'd say its doing its job, regardless of whether your moment of reflection is based on "well the sign is lit so I had better not" or "well the driver drives for a company that thinks flashing lights are the solution to bike safety".

I don't know why it stays on a 60, do they all do that or could it be faulty?  Presumably Brakes didn't have them made especially so if you have a design improvement you really want to find the manufacturer.

No, not legally required. Some systems do but they're generally the most expensive ones or factory-fitted. The system also does not shift the responsibility to drive safely from the driver, it's a regulatory and usually an insurance requirement too. A HGV driver is legally presumed* to have a higher level of driving skill and judgement than a regular car driver without a Class 2 or 1 license so if a collision does occur there is much greater scrutiny. Fines and bans are much larger plus the prospect of jail is much higher compared to a car license.

* I know that not all HGV drivers are any good, some are downright lethal!

What exactly are you going to put in your strongly worded letter? What I see is a sign that might just save someone’s life.

The notion a driver will not bother to check mirrors because they’ve got a sign out back is frankly ridiculous.

There are new (EU, hence why we haven’t heard about them) rules that have come in for those signs in the last year so they work a little differently to what they used to. They have to flash when indicating left and must be illuminated at speeds below 30kph

Ahh right. So if we were still in the EU no one would be complaining then?

I work as an HGV driver for a builders merchants, and had some lovely online training today. They showed a video of a lorry driver, who was completely at fault, left hooking a cyclist, and very nearly taking them out. The head of transport then said, "I hate cyclists, that just get in the ****ing way"
This is what we're up against, stay save...

We get the EU version of the systems by default, no company is going to make a crapper system just for the UK!

The head of transport then said, “I hate cyclists, that just get in the **** way”
This is what we’re up against, stay save…

The Transport Manager in head office at my new job and my boss are both cyclists so this attitude just doesn't exist thankfully!

I'd be okay with a sign that warned about passing on the inside, but that's just a "no cycling" sign. I think that's entirely the wrong subliminal message.

What exactly are you going to put in your strongly worded letter?

No need to get lairy, it was a discussion point and to be honest I'm glad it didn't flop after one reply!

What if...that sort of sign is enforcing a poor culture where drivers are anti cyclist or believe it absolves them of blame? And therefore a lack of care and attention?

The notion a driver will not bother to check mirrors because they’ve got a sign out back is frankly ridiculous

I'd say it's entirely plausible and as per many driver attitudes, they'll grasp at any opportunity to shift the blame to lycra clad scum (or your Mum riding to the shops)

Brakes Food Service when they receive a "strongly worded letter" about a bike warning sign on their vans...

@spooky there is a discussion to be had on how we can make the roads safer but linking the presence of a sign on the back of van to the outcomes you are suggesting is very far fetched.

Isn’t it more plausible an inexperienced cyclist (as we all start out as) may see the sign and realise undertaking a lorry could potentially be risky?

Saw one on a bus the other day

I think they are bloody excellent. Way too many idiots on bikes cut up the nearside of vehicles turning left, not all of them survive. The only reason to object to the extra warning is if you are a hard core fan of Darwin. Which is a perfectly valid position, to be fair.

The only reason to object to the extra warning is if you are a hard core fan of Darwin. Which is a perfectly valid position, to be fair.

Again the use of them as additional aids for when a vehicle is making a left turn is perfecty fine. A 'NO CYCLISTS' sign is not fine. Filtering on the inside of traffic is perfectly fine, in the highway code and many cycle lanes enchorage it. Some drivers will take this as a 'well they shouldn't be there' excuse, when there are perfectly valid reasons for being there. It does nothing for the driver-cyclist relationship or lack of currently.

Obviously anyone who is going intentionally make risky moves is going to ignore the signs anyway, but I still don't think that particular sign is the right one. the little yellow warning sign above is much more approriate. IMO.

Edit: Anyway, its the weekend now so I'm out of the conversation. Have fun and stay safe!

If you can cope with a non illuminated version without contacting the ceo of the company then what difference do a few leds make?

I’d also bet that it falls foul of regulation covering the proper use of road signs, but cannot be arsed to search for that 😀

I’d agree that some cyclists are so stupid that maybe this would save a few lives (education would be much better though) but I also agree it’s victim blaming and arse-covering.

If I see ‘ Brakes’’ on a vehicle it’s always worth keeping clear of whether on a bike,in a car or anything must be in the job description for their drivers?

Isn’t it more plausible an inexperienced cyclist (as we all start out as) may see the sign and realise undertaking a lorry could potentially be risky?

If you didn't already know what it meant, because you're an inexperienced cyclist, then I'm really not sure that a no cycling sign would obviously mean that passing on the left could be a risk.

it’s victim blaming and arse-covering.

Or it's paranoid cyclists refusing to accept any suggestion that an attempt to help them might have any value

Filtering on the inside of traffic is perfectly fine,

While legal. It's a shit idea. Plenty of things are legal but Ill advised.

Just because the cycle lanes are painted there out of convienance (for councils to claim to be cycle friendly)doesn't make it good road positioning.

Video

Every cyclist should watch this very short but extremely demonstrative video. Even though it does now look like it was filmed on a potato.

A classic of the victim blaming narrative rolled out once again. Yes, this demonstrates a truck that has driven past a cycle lane, then turned left into it, even though the driver would have had a clear view of the cyclists on the approach.

Demonstrating the mirrors only show the curtain side when the cab is turned is a lesson to drivers to observe their surroundings before manoeuvring across a lane.

It seems well intentioned to me tbh but somehow manages to be a step back from the more normal stickers. Thing is, there's a LOT of real estate there and generally undertaking cyclists aren't going that fast, they could do so much more.

(also, I only clicked into this thread because the title almost gave me a stroke trying to read it)

jimmy
Full Member

Some cyclists are brainless and lazy too without an understanding of potential consequences of seeing a gap and going for it.

Not picking on you in particular, it was just the post I happened to notice first but... Most people assume that other vehicles are reasonably safe. If we invented vehicles with gigantic cyclist-killing blind spots today they'd not be allowed on the road, or at least not without huge mitigation.

I got to thinking about this after an accident at my work. We had a load of building going on and constant 8-wheeler traffic. As soon as they entered the worksite, which was closed to everyone that didn't work there, they had to drive only through specified routes with prior permission, always have a codriver/observer, have beacons on, couldn't maneouvre without a banksman, and everyone around them was wearing hi-viz and had been trained about how to avoid them. And if anyone got squashed, there'd be investigations, serious consideration of whether their traffic plan was negligent etc etc.

The second they drove out that gate into the world of students studenting, they were just normal traffic.

The building site treated them like the risk they are. The rest of the world is supposed to do all of that themselves. Imagine if you had some other industrial machine, a big lathe, which in the factory had barriers and shields and training requirements and allsorts, but you could just plonk it down in the middle of town and fire swarf at people and have pedestrians blunder into it and get turned to death then say "but it's OBVIOUSLY dangerous so you should have avoided it"

As soon as they entered the worksite, which was closed to everyone that didn’t work there, they had to drive only through specified routes with prior permission, always have a codriver/observer, have beacons on, couldn’t maneouvre without a banksman, and everyone around them was wearing hi-viz and had been trained about how to avoid them.

So, if general traffic was organized like that:
1. Heavy vehicles limited to driving on roads, not on pedestrian or cycle paths.
2. Areas where heavy vehicles permitted closed to cyclists and pedestrians.
3. Heavy vehicles required to be preceded by a person on foot waving a red flag.
4. All road users required to wear hi-viz.
5. All road users trained in how to avoid heavy vehicles.

You should write to your MP and propose legislation.

Northwind, that’s an excellent point.
Those responsible for those vehicles know how dangerous they are. Make them safer.

Or it’s paranoid cyclists refusing to accept any suggestion that an attempt to help them might have any value

I'll cut some slack here but the situation @zilog6128 describes is normal in H&S management circles. It was a major problem when I was working as an advisor. "How can we do as little as possible and be compliant"?" is prevalent and most think a big wedge of completed paperwork on shelves will cover their arses. (No, no it won't you need to walk the walk too).

So are folk not filtering past bigger vehicles (or at all?) in stationery, or slow moving traffic?

So are folk not filtering past bigger vehicles (or at all?) in stationery, or slow moving traffic?

No. I filter down the RHS in stationary traffic. - same as I would on a motorcycle or moped.

I’ll cut some slack here but the situation @zilog6128 describes is normal in H&S management circles. It was a major problem when I was working as an advisor. “How can we do as little as possible and be compliant”?” is prevalent and most think a big wedge of completed paperwork on shelves will cover their arses. (No, no it won’t you need to walk the walk too).

Exactly this and one of the multitude of reasons I left my last role. The MD didn't like my risk assessments as they discovered too many hazards, that would cost money when implementing changes and change the way work was carried out, they ended up on shelves in a folder and the work carried on as before. Guess what, accidents kept happening.

No. I filter down the RHS in stationary traffic. – same as I would on a motorcycle or moped.

This.

And I certainly wouldn't filter up the LHS of a vehicle showing a left turn signal reinforced by a "no cycling" sign

I'm a very proactive cyclist. I also drive a large vehicle like the one in question as part of my daily working life. In an ideal world I'd like my fellow cyclists to get in the driver's seat while you demonstrate the frankly scary extent of the blind spots down the left hand side. And then send my fellow van drivers out on bikes for a week to get a sense of what they experience every time they swing a leg over the saddle.

But that won't happen. You owe it to yourself to educate yourself and others you care about (I'm constantly banging on at my lady-ebike riding sister about taking primary position, not riding down inside large vehicles, etc). Personally I think the OP needs to have a word with himself but that's just me.

Personally I think the OP needs to have a word with himself but that’s just me.

Personally I think you need a word with yourself about normalising the risk.
There are three problems with the sign.
First it adds to the general clutter by being permanently on and only flashing when turning left. If the risk is for turning left it should only activate then. Otherwise it fades into the background. A similar one seems to be having a "vehicle is turning left" loudspeaker going off. Which on a busy industrial estate soons blurs into pointless noise when they all go off at every roundabout.
Second it is a no cycling sign rather than a dont undertake on the left. Which helps feed into the cyclists shouldnt be on the road.
Thirdly its an abdication of responsibility and a rather flawed one since it assumes the cyclist is always going to be the one making the dangerous manoeuvre and hence needs warning off rather than making the vehicle safer.

Your references to cyclists should go and sit in a vehicle to see the blindspots is rather telling. Shouldnt the emphasis be on removing said blindspots?

Going back to the building site example. How well do you think the conversation with HSE would go after someone dies if you went "well we stuck a sign up saying dont do that. What more was needed?".

So these stickers and signs weren’t on vehicles about 10 years ago and now loads have them… do we know if they’ve made a difference to accidents on the road? have fewer lorries/vans actually crushed cyclists by turning left over them?

It's physics, the reality of human frailty, notions of personal responsibility, risk assessment in the real world. I completely get where you're coming from, and Northwind's post above is a great discussion point. As a cyclist myself, I'm super careful round people on bikes (especially the ones that are a danger to themselves and everybody else). Not all drivers are, unfortunately. Big flashing warning signs probably aren't such a bad idea in some circumstances.

the frankly scary extent of the blind spots down the left hand side

To me that says that these vehicles shouldn't be on the road, not that they need a warning sticker or light.

one making the dangerous manoeuvre

If they put themselves on the left hand side of a large vehicle approaching from the rear (ie passing that sign) then yes the cyclist is the one making the dangerous maneuver.

then yes the cyclist is the one making the dangerous maneuver.

Yes now read the words immediately preceding it. How does this flashing sign solve the cases when its the driver making the dangerous maneuver.

Any one noticed the 'Angles Mort' stickers which are a legal requirement on all lorries on the continent and our vehicles going there, after you've seen the first few they just disappear into the general background and a British cyclist would be hard pressed to get what was meant, and I am not referring to the language barrier!
Please be careful, not a dead pedant.

How does this flashing sign solve the cases when its the driver making the dangerous maneuver.

It doesn't because that's not what it's for. It's specifically for the case where a cyclist may decide to pass on the left and put themselves in danger. I thought that would be rather obvious but I guess not, much like the "no cycling" sign on the LHS of the lorry. Of course its not imploring cyclists to pull over and walk instead but clearly some folk just want to be victims, one way or another.

Most (possibly all) large vehicles operating in London will have to be part of the FORS register. These are guidelines for operators and have three levels. Each level requires increasing compliance and in cab tech. The tech in some of the new trucks is brilliant, they have in cab screens, audible warnings inside and out. They are getting safer all the time. Anything to help is good, don’t take it personally as a slight on your ability as a cyclist!
FORS, suggests not to have signs that tell people what to do and not to do. They recommend that you point at the risk not tell people what to do.
As a prohibition sign I don’t think that the OP Brakes one would be okay with FORS.
IN London there is a newer program on road safety, TFLvehicles now need to have the additional near side low level window afaik. This also helps as things in London usually filter out to the rest of the uk.
Edit. Most of the drivers I speak to hate driving in cities. It’s seriously stressful. They are humans too, they don’t like squashing people, neither do the businessman who operate and own the companies they work for. It is hard enough finding drivers anyway at the moment, most good companies are investing big piles of cash to make things safer and easier for the drivers and the people around them. They deserve credit for that. Oh and who would be the first to complain when the coffee shop has run out of almond milk because there was no delivery! They aren’t driving about for fun are they!

Yes now read the words immediately preceding it. How does this flashing sign solve the cases when its the driver making the dangerous maneuver.

For the hard of thinking. A vehicle overtaking and then coming in on you is a very different issue (that the sign doesn't claim to fix) from the cyclist who chooses to travel down the inside of a vehicle - which is by product of our governments policy

As I said right back at the start. If the sign saves one life it's done its job as far as I'm concerned. I'd have liked if it was my mates fiance but it's too late for that.

But apart from that your dead right.....

It doesn’t because that’s not what it’s for. It’s specifically for the case where a cyclist may decide to pass on the left and put themselves in danger

Does it? Since it is always on and is just a simple prohibition sign. It requires someone to actually have the relevant knowledge that passing on the left is dangerous already for it to be of any use.
Its adding a bunch of useless noise to the environment. If it only came on when indicating left it might have something going for it but being permanently on and flashing left really isnt a sensible UX design decision.

Since it is always on

No it's not, the ones I've seen flash with the left turn indicator