Video: Motorist speaks of "upset" after helmet camera footage of bad driving posted to YouTube

Driver apparently misinterpreted signal to hold back - and told CyclingMikey he should be on shared-use path

by Simon_MacMichael   March 26, 2014  

Bromley Common overtake video still (CyclingMikey on YouTube)

A driver in South London has spoken of the “upset” he felt after footage of him exchanging words with a cyclist after trying to pass him at a pinch point on the road was posted to YouTube. The driver seemed to have interpreted a signal from to hold back from the rider, who also told road.cc why he takes helmet camera footage and uploads it to the video-sharing site.

Robert Lewis, aged 56, was seeking to overtake a recumbent bike ridden by YouTube user CyclingMikey as the pair headed along Bromley Common on Thursday 20 March.

As the video shows, with a pedestrian island ahead on the road creating a pinch point, the cyclist gestured to the motorist to hold back until it was safe to overtake.

But the motorist seems to have misinterpreted it as a signal to overtake, and afterwards there was an exchange in which he told CyclingMikey that he should be on the cycle path on the adjacent footway.

The driver, 56-year-old Robert Lewis, told This Is Local London: "I didn't sleep very well over the weekend because it really upset me.

"I didn't sleep very well over the weekend because it really upset me.

"I don't really get into confrontations with people on the road. I don't speed, I've never had a parking fine since I started driving in 1975.

"I'm annoyed he's put this thing about me on YouTube.”

Referring to the incident, Mr Lewis said: "He's given me this hand signal and I am thinking he's wanting me to pass.

"He says 'stay away from me' and he says he's going to put the video on YouTube which I think is an infringement of my privacy.

"I think he does normal cyclists a disservice by not using the cycle lanes for safety reasons, but happily using them if traffic impedes his progress," he added.

That final point perhaps reinforces a misconception held by many motorists who believe that cyclists are obliged to use on-road cycle lanes or shared use paths on the footway.

In fact there is no legal requirement to do so, and due to the presence of pedestrians on the footway plus the presence of driveways and side road junctions, it is safer for faster moving cyclists to be on the main carriageway.

CyclingMikey, who in the description to the video points out that besides being a cyclist, he's also an experiencd driver, told road.cc: “I feel bad that he's upset about this incident, but then how does a little embarrassment compare with the fear and danger he caused me?

“It's very dangerous to cyclists for a driver to attempt to overtake at a pinch point, and I have been knocked off by a driver doing something very similar in the past,” as shown in this video.

Since posting that footage in October 2011, he’s since been overtaken by the same taxi on at least two occasions – six months later in April 2012, and again in January 2013 – and was given much more space each time.

Regarding Thursday’s incident, he said: “This section of road is a difficult one for cyclists as most of us are simply travelling too fast for the pavement cycle path, and the lane itself is narrow and has the pedestrian islands.

“I first became aware of the driver whilst watching traffic coming up for an overtake in my mirrors, and I judged that he would attempt to overtake me through the upcoming pedestrian refuge.

“I signalled right, and let there be no mistake, this is a very obvious right signal, not a waving through. I like to think I make super obvious signals, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could mistake a right arm out as waving them through. This was enough to get him to brake and back off.

“I then made a look signal and pointed to the traffic island as we went through it, and then after the traffic island waved him through, essentially doing his overtake planning for him.

“This is when he chose to come alongside and too close to me and offer advice about riding in the cycle lane. Had he instead chosen to overtake as all the other cars did, I doubt I'd have bothered to upload the video.

“I didn't report him to Roadsafe as this is fairly minor, but had I done so I'm reasonably sure they would have written him an educational letter.”

We asked CyclingMikey why he uses cameras to record footage of examples of bad driving – and, it should be said, cycling – he said: “I'm one of thousands of cyclists who use cameras to educate and improve driver and cyclist behaviour.

“As more and more drivers realise that so many of us are filming, they begin to take more care around cyclists generally. It's no different to all the Russian drivers using dashcams, a natural reaction to bad driving and bad justice.

“I have a playlist of repeat ‘customers’ who generally considerably improve their behaviour on the second encounter,” as happened with those taxi videos linked above.

He added: “I can't imagine ever needing to or wanting to use a camera in the Netherlands.”

Last week, we reported how helmet camera footage from cyclist Dave Brennan had led to a Glasgow driver pleading guilty to four charges including dangerous driving.

In its article, This Is Local London has asked motorists who have had what it describes as an “altercation” with CyclingMikey to get in touch with it.

79 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

userfriendly wrote:

We don't need segregated infrastructure. We already have infrastructure, we just need it to be made safer. For everyone - young and old, slow and fast.

It's cr@p... it's madness to expect cyclists to use the shared paths when they have to stop for every single sidestreet and entranceway... dismount all over the place whenever there's a bus-stop/pedestrian crossing...

and don't get me started on the ways in which it dissappears just when you need it most at junctions or are expected to cross the side arms of the junction by means of pig-penned two stage crossings... and barriers/chicanes all over the place in cycle paths on the offchance some motorcyclist might be tempted to ride on them...

Feeder cycle lanes and ASL's are a fine way to get you into the blind-spot of many a lorry... or risk a left hook because you couln't get into them before the lights changed.

It's all cr@p, especially when compared to best practice over on the continent in the form or Dutch and Danish facilities...

posted by Paul_C [171 posts]
27th March 2014 - 14:24

like this
Like (18)

farrell wrote:
Anybody else noticed that a lot of drivers see a completely straight, stretched out right arm not as an indicator of a cyclist turning right but as an invitation to accelerate past the cyclist?

I encounter this almost every day, it's getting quite annoying.

Not that I wish to defend car drivers, as the majority of them are incompetent, useless, malicious wa*kstains who should be treated to the business end of a D-lock across the jaw.

Buuuuuut..... I've noticed that more and more cyclists seem to think that sticking out an arm at a 45° angle for half a pedal revolution, constitutes 'signaling' their intention to other road users.

Back in the day when youngsters sat the bicycle proficiency stuff, we got told that a signal was an arm, held horizontally until we started to 'commit' to the manœuvre.

This doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I saw one guy hold out his arm down next to his saddle, splay his fingers out, and rotate his hand around like a 'whisk'.

'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning' (Henry Ford)

cyclingDMlondon's picture

posted by cyclingDMlondon [211 posts]
27th March 2014 - 14:27

like this
Like (5)

brooksby wrote:
Quote:
he says he's going to put the video on YouTube which I think is an infringement of my privacy.

What privacy? He's on a public road. There is no expectation of privacy whilst out in a public space

You'd be surprised how many people do not know this. I carry my SLR virtually everywhere with me (in the handlebar bag when I'm mobile), and when I'm photographing people and buildings in London, I am accosted almost on a daily basis by people who complain that I 'didn't ask' their permission before taking their photograph.

To their credit, plod seem to have got it into their thick skull (not before time) that citing s. 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 isn't going to cut the mustard, but the general public are still labouring under the impression that they can stop you taking their photograph.

'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning' (Henry Ford)

cyclingDMlondon's picture

posted by cyclingDMlondon [211 posts]
27th March 2014 - 14:35

like this
Like (15)

Paul_C wrote:

userfriendly wrote:

We don't need segregated infrastructure. We already have infrastructure, we just need it to be made safer. For everyone - young and old, slow and fast.

Feeder cycle lanes and ASL's are a fine way to get you into the blind-spot of many a lorry... or risk a left hook because you couln't get into them before the lights changed.

With "we already have infrastructure" that needs to be made safer I was referring to our roads. Not painted "cycle lanes" etc.

Work harder. Buy a tank.

userfriendly's picture

posted by userfriendly [284 posts]
27th March 2014 - 14:37

like this
Like (12)

muffies wrote:
The cyclist seems legally ok but to be honest the others have a few points that we may easily dismiss because we "dont like motorists". I don't think we should.

Then dont play the tribalism game.

Its about PEOPLE using forms of transport.

muffies wrote:
- hand signal is non-standard and yes, some will misinterpret, that doesn't make them bad persons or drivers.

What does make you a bad driver is trying to overtake at a pinch point. Its completed fucking retarded and doesn't require pointing out. If it does, you should hand in your driving license immediately.

muffies wrote:
- not ever using the bike lane to prove a point generally annoys motorists as it slows the traffic down significantly -as shown in this video.
I'm not sure the "added safety" really outweighs the gains. I only use the road (and when i do, i generally take control of the lane) when strictly necessary.
He seems to use the bike lane when strictly convenient. Sharp opposite.

Before you spout such nonsense, acquaint yourself with the laws of the public highways: Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have RIGHT OF ACCESS. Whereas vehicles can only access them UNDER LICENSE.

There are strict conditions for that license, which sadly are not enforced as they should be.

Cycling provisions are not mandatory, are usually in terrible condition littered with glass and detritus, and are created by carving the pavement and converting into shared space.

Just because you decide to travel in a certain manner, doe snot mean that every one else who uses that same form of transport should travel as you do. Just as I do not think that because I can cycle at the same speed as motorised traffic (usually faster as Im in London), I do not think that everyone should be expected to travel at this speed or get the hell off the road.

muffies wrote:
not ever using the bike lane to prove a point generally annoys motorists as it slows the traffic down significantly

Boo fucking hoo!

zanf's picture

posted by zanf [479 posts]
27th March 2014 - 16:01

like this
Like (16)

muffies wrote:

not ever using the bike lane to prove a point generally annoys motorists as it slows the traffic down significantly

Big assumption there, I think it is more likely that he's not using the cycle lane because it's not in the slightest bit safe to cycle on it at 20-30mph and the fact that it gives way to every junction - it shouldn't.

posted by kie7077 [452 posts]
27th March 2014 - 16:18

like this
Like (14)

kie7077 wrote:
muffies wrote:

not ever using the bike lane to prove a point generally annoys motorists as it slows the traffic down significantly

Big assumption there, I think it is more likely that he's not using the cycle lane because it's not in the slightest bit safe to cycle on it at 20-30mph and the fact that it gives way to every junction - it shouldn't.

I'd quite like to see a video of Mikey trying to ride his recumbent along that cycle line, so as to prove a point.

posted by bikebot [489 posts]
27th March 2014 - 17:53

like this
Like (14)

The driving in the video is terrible.
It's clear that there is a traffic island coming up, and then after the first attempt he pulls alongside to shout and then pusjes past at the next island.
If he thinks that is ok, he should mail his licence back to the DVLA.

The fact the driver didn't like the video being put on YouTube, but was happy to speak to the local paper (giving his name) just makes him look ridiculous.

I suppose the people critising CyclingMikey here would rather the driver just continued driving like that until he hit someone.

If you don't like YouTube footage stories, they are easy to spot and avoid here.

posted by thereverent [298 posts]
27th March 2014 - 18:28

like this
Like (16)

This happened to me today, as I headed east on South Row near Blackheath (SE London). Some dozy wanker in a black Honda came up behind me. I've almost been knocked off at that junction, so moved to the right to make sure it wasn't going to happen again. To gain a second, maybe two, he overtook me right before the roundabout (see piccie). By the time he had to swerve back in to avoid hitting the bollard, he was pointing more or less in the direction of the small blue arrow.

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/twat.png

twat.png

'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning' (Henry Ford)

cyclingDMlondon's picture

posted by cyclingDMlondon [211 posts]
27th March 2014 - 19:05

like this
Like (15)

muffies wrote:

- hand signal is non-standard and yes, some will misinterpret, that doesn't make them bad persons or drivers.

- not ever using the bike lane to prove a point generally annoys motorists as it slows the traffic down significantly -as shown in this video.

Point 1 - Misinterpreting a non-standard hand signal doesn't make you a bad driver. What makes you a bad driver is taking action on an assumed meaning of the hand signal and creating a dangerous situation. If you are incapable of using your own judgement to avoid danger then you shouldn't be driving.

Point 2 - You're effectively saying that a person has more right to be on the road if they are driving a car, rather than riding a bike. That's wrong by any and all arguments.

posted by qwerky [134 posts]
28th March 2014 - 11:11

like this
Like (12)

kie7077 wrote:
muffies wrote:

not ever using the bike lane to prove a point generally annoys motorists as it slows the traffic down significantly

Big assumption there, I think it is more likely that he's not using the cycle lane because it's not in the slightest bit safe to cycle on it at 20-30mph and the fact that it gives way to every junction - it shouldn't.

Current guidance is that over 17mph you should not be using the cycle lane, so you may in fact be liable to a dangerous cycling prosecution.

posted by qwerky [134 posts]
28th March 2014 - 11:17

like this
Like (10)

MKultra wrote:
...and it's a bit tedious that Mikey is yet again seeking to dominate and dictate opinion elsewhere and roping his little gang in to scream and shout on his behalf.
Seriously? So from your train of thought am I now supposed to berate the original poster for roping you in? Or, perhaps are you an adult who makes his own choices?
Maybe you are judging me by your own standards... but me, I'm a big boy, all grow'd up and everything. Right or wrong I make my own choices whether you, he or anyone else like it or not.
So you're suggesting that people are allowed to slag off people that they don't know, but people who know them (better) aren't allowed to post similarly? Leaving anyone neutral with a totally biased perspective... Wow!! what a great forum!! and thanks... you've just reminded me why I post in such places under a pseudonym...
Are you really so desperate to belittle someone, someone that you presumably don't even know, that you'd stoop to dreaming up (entirely incorrect) reasons on how you can blame another adults actions and choices on him??
As for your incorrect assumptions, I very much doubt you know the only forum that I've been on with him for the last x years, and I can pretty much guarantee no-one else from that forum has posted.
The closest Mikey had to any involvement on me posting here, as either a forum or this specific article, would be that me getting interested in such things a handful of years ago would have been partly due to him posting about similar things.

posted by Barnie [9 posts]
28th March 2014 - 12:22

like this
Like (5)

bikebot wrote:
I'd quite like to see a video of Mikey trying to ride his recumbent along that cycle line, so as to prove a point.
Indeed, elsewhere on the internet ( here or elsewhere, I don't know... and nothing to do with Mikey before MKultra get's all over excited and goes conspiracy theorist again... ), a motorcylist posted about how annoying it was cyclists cycling slowly up West Hill from Wandsworth to Putney. As it was part of my daily commute I described it... to his credit he replied and fully understood. I can't remember his words, but he had no idea of the problems with the cycle path while he was motoring up the ( usually congested ) road. He didn't even know that path only started after the steepest part of the hill to start with ( right outside a fire station, yay! ), let alone _all_ the usual problems of trees, street furniture, gaps in the path, side turnings every 20m or so ( literally ) ( it explicitly has bollards marking little slaloms before each side turning... great if you're a stunt rider on a SWB BMX... not so great for the 99.9% of people using the path on normal length bikes... ).
Despite being the second worst path that I know of ( 9 Elms Lane east bound is literally uncyclable, even to BMX stunt riders ) I did actually use it, but only because it was at the end of commute, and the main road was so congested that it had it's own exceptional frustrations and dangers ( i.e. it was nice to forget about cars launching themselves down side turnings for sort cuts without looking/indicating ).
Interestingly, the other side of the road, heading downhill, has a cycle lane, which works really, really well... but still many cyclists go down the single width cycle path... which is probably fair enough in the grander scheme, but adds to the fun while figuring out how to negotiate the many static obstacles.

posted by Barnie [9 posts]
28th March 2014 - 12:48

like this
Like (8)

cyclingDMlondon wrote:
Buuuuuut..... I've noticed that more and more cyclists seem to think that sticking out an arm at a 45° angle for half a pedal revolution, constitutes 'signaling' their intention to other road users.
On the other hand ( boom, tsh ), sometimes you need your hand on the brake...
There's a lovely mini roundabout at the bottom of a steep hill near me... I hadn't noticed the problem until I was coming down it to turn right, while a car was coming in from the left... She wasn't stopping for me ( despite my obvious road position... ), claiming because I didn't indicate, I couldn't indicate as she wasn't giving way, pulling out in front of me, so I needed my front brake...
Perhaps she kind've undermined her argument that she didn't know which way I was going in in that she was still moving forwards when I was literally going right at 45 degrees across her nearside front corner... ( i.e. she only stopped after this point as otherwise she'd have driven in to me, albeit slowly ) rather than going in the opposite direction...

posted by Barnie [9 posts]
28th March 2014 - 13:03

like this
Like (5)

Barnie wrote:
MKultra wrote:
...and it's a bit tedious that Mikey is yet again seeking to dominate and dictate opinion elsewhere and roping his little gang in to scream and shout on his behalf.
Seriously? So from your train of thought am I now supposed to berate the original poster for roping you in? Or, perhaps are you an adult who makes his own choices?
Maybe you are judging me by your own standards... but me, I'm a big boy, all grow'd up and everything. Right or wrong I make my own choices whether you, he or anyone else like it or not.
So you're suggesting that people are allowed to slag off people that they don't know, but people who know them (better) aren't allowed to post similarly? Leaving anyone neutral with a totally biased perspective... Wow!! what a great forum!! and thanks... you've just reminded me why I post in such places under a pseudonym...
Are you really so desperate to belittle someone, someone that you presumably don't even know, that you'd stoop to dreaming up (entirely incorrect) reasons on how you can blame another adults actions and choices on him??
As for your incorrect assumptions, I very much doubt you know the only forum that I've been on with him for the last x years, and I can pretty much guarantee no-one else from that forum has posted.
The closest Mikey had to any involvement on me posting here, as either a forum or this specific article, would be that me getting interested in such things a handful of years ago would have been partly due to him posting about similar things.
Well done you for giving in to peer pressure.

And there lies the rub - agree with mikey or put up with this kind of incoherent ranting.

If you are not so easily lead as you claim then you are not proving it by posting a lengthy rant ripping in to any one who dares suggest that maybe he is not the kind of spokesperson most cyclists want representing us in social media. This must be the 4th forum not including twitter and you tube carrying his footage and opinions forward as if they are gospel and an overly vocal minority are supporting it.

Lovely person or not he comes across as shrill and hysterical in every form of media he hijacks as a self appointed expert. It's worrying as he is making the car v cyclists issue adversarial, he might not think that but that is what is happening. Sooner or later he is going to smugly utter the words "you are on camera" and some one is going get out and fill him in and smash the camera. It happens to photo journalists all the time and it's only a matter of when and not if it happens to him.

But hey ho, lets not let common sense stand in the way of self promotion.

posted by MKultra [210 posts]
28th March 2014 - 13:03

like this
Like (6)

Good he should be upset. He didn't think anyone would notice him driving like that or "having a word" with a cyclist when he himself was at fault. So tough. It's out there. This is how this person treats vulnerable road users. It also displays that he has no idea about elements of the Highway Code.

He was on a public road. Claiming his privacy is infringed is a joke.

He just never thought his actions would be exposed. That's what upsets him. So good. Let that be a lesson.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [563 posts]
28th March 2014 - 13:14

like this
Like (13)

cyclingDMlondon wrote:
farrell wrote:
Anybody else noticed that a lot of drivers see a completely straight, stretched out right arm not as an indicator of a cyclist turning right but as an invitation to accelerate past the cyclist?

I encounter this almost every day, it's getting quite annoying.

Not that I wish to defend car drivers, as the majority of them are incompetent, useless, malicious wa*kstains who should be treated to the business end of a D-lock across the jaw.

Buuuuuut..... I've noticed that more and more cyclists seem to think that sticking out an arm at a 45° angle for half a pedal revolution, constitutes 'signaling' their intention to other road users.

Back in the day when youngsters sat the bicycle proficiency stuff, we got told that a signal was an arm, held horizontally until we started to 'commit' to the manœuvre.

This doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I saw one guy hold out his arm down next to his saddle, splay his fingers out, and rotate his hand around like a 'whisk'.

Yep quite right. Signals need to be unmissable. If you can get in some eye contact that's even better. And cyclists do need to dominate their space early. Early look, early signal, early position in a way that leaves no doubt.

Okay some drivers are still going to try their luck. But the majority of drivers are quite happy with certainty. They dislike guesswork. Even from other drivers that don't signal.

I've also seen the pathetic hand signals you describe. It's mainly novice cyclists that don't like taking their hand off the bars so only take it off a little.

I am definitely not in favour of any kind of test to be able to cycle or any compulsory schemes. But some people ought to know themselves that their skills aren't always up to the job of keeping them safe.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [563 posts]
28th March 2014 - 13:27

like this
Like (12)

oozaveared wrote:
cyclingDMlondon wrote:
farrell wrote:
Anybody else noticed that a lot of drivers see a completely straight, stretched out right arm not as an indicator of a cyclist turning right but as an invitation to accelerate past the cyclist?

I encounter this almost every day, it's getting quite annoying.

Not that I wish to defend car drivers, as the majority of them are incompetent, useless, malicious wa*kstains who should be treated to the business end of a D-lock across the jaw.

Buuuuuut..... I've noticed that more and more cyclists seem to think that sticking out an arm at a 45° angle for half a pedal revolution, constitutes 'signaling' their intention to other road users.

Back in the day when youngsters sat the bicycle proficiency stuff, we got told that a signal was an arm, held horizontally until we started to 'commit' to the manœuvre.

This doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I saw one guy hold out his arm down next to his saddle, splay his fingers out, and rotate his hand around like a 'whisk'.

Yep quite right. Signals need to be unmissable. If you can get in some eye contact that's even better. And cyclists do need to dominate their space early. Early look, early signal, early position in a way that leaves no doubt.

Okay some drivers are still going to try their luck. But the majority of drivers are quite happy with certainty. They dislike guesswork. Even from other drivers that don't signal.

I've also seen the pathetic hand signals you describe. It's mainly novice cyclists that don't like taking their hand off the bars so only take it off a little.

I am definitely not in favour of any kind of test to be able to cycle or any compulsory schemes. But some people ought to know themselves that their skills aren't always up to the job of keeping them safe.

Another tip which some novices may find useful, is that if you're coming up to a junction and a car is waiting to pull out, don't look at the car or the driver. Look at the wheels. It's much easier to see a wheel turn when the direction of movement is perpindicular to yours, than it is to see the car itself move.

'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning' (Henry Ford)

cyclingDMlondon's picture

posted by cyclingDMlondon [211 posts]
28th March 2014 - 14:23

like this
Like (1)

MKultra wrote:
Well done you for giving in to peer pressure.
Sigh... what peer pressure is this now that you're guessing at?
I just posted to say I know him, and he's not hysterical. End of story. No judgement on those who's opinions differ, no statements about who can post what, all of that his come from you and you only.

My original post was polite and concise, to give a little balance. It's not a "long rant".
You then went off on one.
Now, you've got a huge problem, because I know for a fact, as already stated ( *yawn* ) that I came here entirely under my own steam.
I _know_ that all your guesses are entirely wrong.
I _know_ that your conspiracy theories are entirely unfounded, and that therefore, on the balance of probabilities, His Mikeyness is probably not trying to take over the multiverse one car driver at a time ( with himself being a car driver... argggg the paradoxxxxx ).

You want to argue based on common sense, while also basing your argument on your incorrect guesses about why I posted, which you've then extrapolated to fit your Mikey conspiracy theory.
Well done on publishing that hypocrisy to the world!

If, as you indicate, you'd prefer to debate this based on common sense, then of course you'll be keen to set the record straight and retract all your guesses and their derivations.

Either way, have a nice day!

posted by Barnie [9 posts]
28th March 2014 - 14:26

like this
Like (8)

Barnie wrote:
cyclingDMlondon wrote:
Buuuuuut..... I've noticed that more and more cyclists seem to think that sticking out an arm at a 45° angle for half a pedal revolution, constitutes 'signaling' their intention to other road users.
On the other hand ( boom, tsh ), sometimes you need your hand on the brake...
There's a lovely mini roundabout at the bottom of a steep hill near me... I hadn't noticed the problem until I was coming down it to turn right, while a car was coming in from the left... She wasn't stopping for me ( despite my obvious road position... ), claiming because I didn't indicate, I couldn't indicate as she wasn't giving way, pulling out in front of me, so I needed my front brake...
Perhaps she kind've undermined her argument that she didn't know which way I was going in in that she was still moving forwards when I was literally going right at 45 degrees across her nearside front corner... ( i.e. she only stopped after this point as otherwise she'd have driven in to me, albeit slowly ) rather than going in the opposite direction...

I suspect that in a collision, you would have been found at least partly responsible (and I don't mean to absolve her of any potential blame, in saying that).

There is a similar hill near where I live (I say 'similar', but don't know where you are, so can only say that it's 'pretty steep'). I can signal right coming down it, shifting my bum back a bit on the saddle to put a bit more weight onto the back wheel. If it gets too hairy, I slow down and stop, and walk across.

'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning' (Henry Ford)

cyclingDMlondon's picture

posted by cyclingDMlondon [211 posts]
28th March 2014 - 14:26

like this
Like (2)

cyclingDMlondon wrote:
Barnie wrote:
cyclingDMlondon wrote:
Buuuuuut..... I've noticed that more and more cyclists seem to think that sticking out an arm at a 45° angle for half a pedal revolution, constitutes 'signaling' their intention to other road users.
On the other hand ( boom, tsh ), sometimes you need your hand on the brake...
There's a lovely mini roundabout at the bottom of a steep hill near me... I hadn't noticed the problem until I was coming down it to turn right, while a car was coming in from the left... She wasn't stopping for me ( despite my obvious road position... ), claiming because I didn't indicate, I couldn't indicate as she wasn't giving way, pulling out in front of me, so I needed my front brake...
Perhaps she kind've undermined her argument that she didn't know which way I was going in in that she was still moving forwards when I was literally going right at 45 degrees across her nearside front corner... ( i.e. she only stopped after this point as otherwise she'd have driven in to me, albeit slowly ) rather than going in the opposite direction...

I suspect that in a collision, you would have been found at least partly responsible (and I don't mean to absolve her of any potential blame, in saying that).

There is a similar hill near where I live (I say 'similar', but don't know where you are, so can only say that it's 'pretty steep'). I can signal right coming down it, shifting my bum back a bit on the saddle to put a bit more weight onto the back wheel. If it gets too hairy, I slow down and stop, and walk across.

There are a couple of places where I have that problem. Have sometimes resorted to sticking a leg out instead and sort of attempting to point with my head. Usually there's not much traffic about there, fortunately. Its the one time I went and dug out 'Cyclecraft' to look for advice, only to read the useful comment that "sometimes you have to choose between signalling and braking".

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [660 posts]
28th March 2014 - 14:50

like this
Like (2)

cyclingDMlondon wrote:
I suspect that in a collision, you would have been found at least partly responsible (and I don't mean to absolve her of any potential blame, in saying that).
Probably not, indicating doesn't carry much/any weight in these things if I understand it correctly, I had right of way, she didn't give way.
Her initial defense of "I thought you were turning left", turned in to "I didn't know which way you were going" when I pointed out I was obviously positioned in the middle of the road for turning right ( there is no straight on ).
To look at it another way, might doesn't make it right. If I'd been the no9 bus which makes the same turn as I made, not signalling ( which I've seen more than once ), with far less obvious road positioning (as the bus fills that side of the road), I'm perretty sure she'd have acted on her lack of certainty correctly!

posted by Barnie [9 posts]
28th March 2014 - 17:30

like this
Like (4)

Barnie wrote:
cyclingDMlondon wrote:
I suspect that in a collision, you would have been found at least partly responsible (and I don't mean to absolve her of any potential blame, in saying that).
Probably not, indicating doesn't carry much/any weight in these things if I understand it correctly, I had right of way, she didn't give way.
Her initial defense of "I thought you were turning left", turned in to "I didn't know which way you were going" when I pointed out I was obviously positioned in the middle of the road for turning right ( there is no straight on ).
To look at it another way, might doesn't make it right. If I'd been the no9 bus which makes the same turn as I made, not signalling ( which I've seen more than once ), with far less obvious road positioning (as the bus fills that side of the road), I'm perretty sure she'd have acted on her lack of certainty correctly!

There are two elements of this.

1 Signalling your intention and positioning yourself so that it is clear to other road users what you are doing is just good common sense. It keeps you safer.

2 Even if you do signal properly then some drivers often lie about whether people signalled or didn't or did it late or didn't seem to be positioned correctly to turn or whatever. They also do this in vehicle collisions as well That's just muddying the waters on liability. Yes some people will lie to get themselves out of an expensive spot.

The fact that some people might lie about your signal does not mean that it is pointless.

Its not pointless because its still a sensible thing to do.
It's not pointless because sometimes there are witnesses.
The witness can either say that they clearly saw you signal. Or they can say that they clearly saw that you didn't signal.
If they saw you signal then your chances of getting damages or not having to pay them are increased.
There's more chance of the witness saying they saw you signal if you actually did.

This can all be summed up very easily by remembering that if you obey the rules and drive or ride safely you are less likely to be involved in a collision. But if a collision does occurr you are also less likely to be blamed.

just sayin

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [563 posts]
28th March 2014 - 17:49

like this
Like (4)

As a cyclist and as a motorist, you have a right to be on the road, but you DON'T have the right to ride however the hell you want.

In this case, the driver acted wrongly with bad passing and bad etiquette as well as poor knowledge of hand signals. But he clearly had a point.

#1 - according to the cyclist: "“This section of road is a difficult one for cyclists as most of us are simply travelling too fast for the pavement cycle path, and the lane itself is narrow and has the pedestrian islands."

And it is plainly visible in the video that there is virtually no pedestrian traffic on the cycle path. So the question of WHY NOT USE THE CYCLE PATH FOR A SECTION OF ROAD YOU CALL DIFFICULT?

Answer: He wanted to travel faster than is safe/allowed on the cycling path or perhaps wanted to protest (with good reason) that the cycling path is not NO PEDESTRIANS as they are in many other places.

But that does NOT mean that it was a wise choice to ignore the cycling path and ride on the road, with traffic in a section of road you call DIFFICULT.

The fact of the matter is that as a bicycle, you are ALWAYS going to be riding too fast for pedestrians and too slow for traffic. Hence the best course of action is to choose the path that represents the safest option for all parties involved (yes, cyclists have a responsibility for the safety of others, as do motorists).

So the logical choice is to take the cycle path, avoiding the much more dangerous vehicles and ADJUST SPEED ACCORDINGLY. If your bike is too fast for pedestrians, then SLOW DOWN AROUND PEDESTRIANS. Motorists have to SLOW DOWN AROUND CYCLISTS, so the idea that a cyclist "Shouldn't have to slow down and take a cycling path because they have a right to be on the roads" is self-centered and moronic.

If you have two options and you CHOOSE the one that represents more danger to yourself, then you feeling "fear and danger" because of your proximity to motorists IS ENTIRELY YOUR CHOICE.

If you don't want to feel that 'fear and danger', then slow down and ride the cycle path. This is not a complicated decision. But it IS a decision.

You are entitled to ride your bike, but you MAY be required to adjust speed according to the conditions.

This cyclist was not willing to do so. So a certain amount of namecalling is hardly surprising.

posted by eschelar [35 posts]
29th March 2014 - 5:10

like this
Like (3)

Isn't it about time recumbents were made illegal? They can't be seen in traffic as they are below the bonnet line on today's larger cars. The cars are getting larger to accommodate all the airbags and other safety stuff and here's this idiot doing his best to get killed by one.

posted by bobdelamare [19 posts]
29th March 2014 - 12:03

like this
Like (2)

So do you struggle to see road markings from the seat of your car? Or do you think cyclists stop existing once you can't see them?

posted by oldstrath [144 posts]
29th March 2014 - 12:03

like this
Like (8)

bobdelamare wrote:
Isn't it about time recumbents were made illegal? They can't be seen in traffic as they are below the bonnet line on today's larger cars. The cars are getting larger to accommodate all the airbags and other safety stuff and here's this idiot doing his best to get killed by one.

You are right that cars have been getting larger and larger in recent decades. I would argue that its _that_ that needs to be addressed by the law. For one thing there's not enough space on the roads to accommodate them, and, as you point out, they aren't safe. Ban larger vehicles!

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [660 posts]
29th March 2014 - 12:51

like this
Like (5)

bobdelamare wrote:
Isn't it about time recumbents were made illegal? They can't be seen in traffic as they are below the bonnet line on today's larger cars. The cars are getting larger to accommodate all the airbags and other safety stuff and here's this idiot doing his best to get killed by one.

And the number of recumbent riders killed or seriously injured on the roads is..?

The point is many cars are too big for our roads, let alone the other vehicles. We should also remember how low down many old classic cars and sports cars are. Even some motorbikes are pretty small.

True idiocy comes from ignorance and the arrogance to believe assumptions to be true. And you did make a pretty ignorant statement....

downfader's picture

posted by downfader [199 posts]
29th March 2014 - 17:48

like this
Like (4)

CM quote "Plan ahead and use some anticipation to drive". This just after " i signaled right to stop some numpty overtaking...." i guess CM didn't turn right. So the traffic never had a clue what CM was doing. How about he stops waving his hands around and gets on down the road. I do find CM and his ilk are looking for a fight. Just as a majority of drivers are OK and don't want to kill anyone, a majority of cyclist can managed to cycle safely without causing an incident.
Its easy to see that MC is a minority and has no thought for other cyclists, the driver his annoys may well be the one who has less patience with another cyclist because of his actions.

Well done

posted by newboots [3 posts]
1st April 2014 - 0:02

like this
Like (1)

"I've never had a parking fine..."

Good grief.

posted by roseofwinter [41 posts]
1st August 2014 - 16:48

like this
Like (0)