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.
75 thoughts on “Video: Motorist speaks of “upset” after helmet camera footage of bad driving posted to YouTube”
Impressed that the driver is
Impressed that the driver is so keen to safeguard his privacy that he allowed his full name, age and the road he lives on to be published in the local rag.
“My driving is so poor, that
“My driving is so poor, that I thought it’d be best to contact the local paper and get it published as I wasnt sleeping from the stress” 😛 =))
“My driving is so poor, that
“My driving is so poor, that I thought it’d be best to contact the local paper and get it published as I wasnt sleeping from the stress” 😛 =))
“I then made a look signal
“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.”
CyclingMikey ought to be aware that, although he is completely correct with regard to the cycle paths and the misconceptions held by motorists, using non standard signals is never a good idea as they lack the clarity which he usually ensures and that waving a driver through is never a good idea.
Use road positioning and signals to alert drivers to what you are doing but the choice to overtake or make other manoeuvres should be left to the motorist.
Whether driving or cycling we should neither make signals to tell others that they can proceed with a manoeuvre nor act on such signals without having checked and decided for ourselves that the move is appropriate.
shay cycles wrote:“I then
The voice of sense, well said. Cyclingmikey has far too many videos on his youtube channel, it’s almost like he wants the confrontation (I ride in London daily and don’t have half as many confrontations as him). Keep yourself to yourself, signal what you’re doing and get on with it. Why did he not just move out slightly if he didn’t want the guy overtaking – by pointing, the driver has to spot the gesture, understand the gesture, identify what he’s pointing at, understand why he’s pointing at it and then take action, hardly an easy process at speed and easily misinterpreted.
AyBee wrote:Cyclingmikey has
If he wears a headcam all the time, then maybe its not that he has any more confrontations but that he publishes every little confrontation, the ones we all just shake our heads, swear a little, and carry on with our journeys.
So many road users don’t
So many road users don’t understand that a cycle lane is an OPTION and not compulsory. There are so many around Manchester that are full of crud, potholes and glass that render them pointless, and those that run alongside roads on the pavement just take you into signposts, lamp posts, pedestrians and on topsy-turvy tangents, making the road a much quicker and safer option.
YorkshireMike wrote:So many
Very much the same in Middlesbrough so many junctions, pedestrians, lamp posts and other objects that using the road is a far better option, most of the time you are moving faster than the traffic anyway.
A couple of things:
“…he’s
A couple of things:
“…he’s going to put the video on YouTube which I think is an infringement of my privacy…”
The road is a public space and so there is no privacy issue at all.
“…I think he does normal cyclists a disservice by not using the cycle lanes for safety reasons…”
Most of the reasons for not using shared cycle lanes is for safety reasons, pedestirans, street furniture, lack of right or way, etc….
But even if you did think that he was signaling for you to overtake, it was at a pinch point, when I am driving my car if a cyclist signals for me to overtake it is up to me as the driver to decide whether or not I will. Afterall, a cyclist doesn’t know how quickly I will pass or how risk adverse I am and therefore how much time/space I require to pass.
Wolfshade wrote:
Most of the
I’m playing devil’s advocate here and therefore I’m sure I’m going to get some abuse, but here goes.
Love the quote above, I would imagine that cycle lanes are much safer than a road, I know there has been some horrible accidents on cycle lanes but a vast majority of accidents happen on a road.
mikeprytherch wrote:Wolfshade
You are quite right that most of the collisions (not accident there is always someone to blame 😉 ) do occur on road. This is even the case where there are pedestrian vs motorist collisions.
It is known that junctions are the highest location for accidents, and frequently the pavement cycle routes do not have priority, instead the minor road making a junction does so this gives the cyclist a vast number of extra junctions and exposing yourself to extra risk. As an aside this lack of ability to maintain my momentum is irksome. Then there is the risk of “straying” pedestrian, this observationally biased phenomenon where if a pedestrian has a choice between walking on the pedestrian side or the cycle side they always* pick the cycle side. (*not always). Then there are the issues with the road surface and huge number of street furniture to dodge around, including the bus stop with gangs of people in the cycle lane.
It all comes down to how you best judge the risk which is a decision that everyone needs to make for themselves.
I would love for a shared cycle lane to be the best option, but frequently they are ill conceived and poorly executed.
Quote:he says he’s going to
What privacy? He’s on a public road. There is no expectation of privacy whilst out in a public space (unless you are a celebrity or otherwise very wealthy, which becomes a whole different ball game…).
Anyway, it’s not like someone put up posters of him on his road – seriously, what are the chances of someone he knows or ever comes into contact with, finding a random youtube clip of him driving like an a**e?
And, if he was so concerned about his privacy he wouldn’t have gone and talked to his local newspaper to complain about it – all that has achieved, I would imagine, is to increase the number of hits on said youtube clip.
Cycling Mikey also known as
Cycling Mikey also known as “Bent Mikey” has form for being all over the forums self promoting – trying to sell him self as an expert. I am not sure if he ever managed to get picked up as a paid consultant by a local council, government body or whatever cycling charity but he keeps on trying. It makes a change that he isn’t recycling (yet again) the footage of the cyclist he saw get killed. It was incidental that he witnessed that, it doesn’t make him the Frank Lloyd wright of the cycling world. I would just ignore him. He also does rollerblading lessons if you are interested.
That”s harsh. I can’t
That”s harsh. I can’t comment on his private motives for doing what he does (if he indeed has any that are private)…can’t read anyone’s mind, but I have no reason to believe he is motivated by anything other than a wish to capture dangerous or careless driving on camera as evidence in case it is ever needed for legal reasons, and a hope that by publicising such behaviour, drivers will begin to realise how what they do on the road can impact so powerfully on the safety and experience of more vulnerable road users. I can’t see the harm in that at all, really.
There’s some quality
There’s some quality journalism there. This morning that had about a thousand views which is apparently a YouTube hit.
The paper doesn’t seem to have bothered asking London’s well known and easily contactable recumbent rider for a response. But they are inviting anyone who has had an “altercation” with him to give their news desk a call.
For some reason, they don’t seem to be interested in anyone who has had an altercation with the driver.
I had a really unpleasant
I had a really unpleasant exchange with that CyclingMikey on Twitter recently. In my opinion, he is not a force for good – by being so aggressive and dogmatic, I actually find he ends up being more obnoxious than many of the motorists he targets. He was completely unwilling to enter into sensible and constructive debate – I say this as a passionate cycle commuter and campaigner for cycling safety, hardly his mortal enemy one would have thought? Still, he comes across as so hysterical – I suspect he probably has issues far and above his concerns about aggressive drivers but there we are…
Yennings wrote:I had a really
Was it the mayo on chips thing? Honestly, never go there with a Dutchman, I’ve made that mistake only once…
I’ve ridden with mike a few
I’ve ridden with mike a few times. He’s a lovely bloke. He is dogmatic on fora though, I’ll give you that, but I’ve met a few people, who on fora are really difficult to deal with, but just lovely people in real life. He definitely falls into the latter category.
Yennings wrote:I had a really
He certainly comes across as you describe in this video. It seems unfortunate that so much publicity has come out of this, I don’t think it will do us much good.
that may or may not be so,
that may or may not be so, but even more so overtaking shouldn’t of been hard the road has good visibility, niether the traffic islands or bike where altering their speed.
Yennings wrote:…he comes
I’ve known him for about 8 years, on fora and in real life. We’ve argued/debated at odds many times. Like everyone, he’s many things, but hysterical is definitely not one of them, he’s one of the least hysterical people I know, I’m not even sure he’s ordinarily capable of being hysterical…
If you’re a passionate cycle safety campaigner, who argues from a considered and educated point rather than mere opinion, and can cope with being shown to be wrong, then I’d suggest you could do a lot worse than re-evaluate your perception of him.
Barnie wrote:Yennings
It would make a refreshing change if the little clique from a certain forum didn’t spend so much time defending him. This is not that forum 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. Yet again it ends in the same thing which is Mikey shouting “look at me am really important” and then his cronies stepping in when all the normal people tell him to jog on as they are tired of listening to him. No one uses this particular site to be lectured by the likes of Mikey or his London based online clique. It’s frankly annoying that yet another previously entertaining cycling page is turning into yet another mouth piece for London’s most narcissistic recumbent rider.
MKultra wrote:It would make a
This conspiracy theory stuff is really irrelevant to the topic, in my opinion.
(Though I guess it fits your user name!)
MKultra wrote:…and it’s a
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.
Barnie wrote:MKultra
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.
MKultra wrote:Well done you
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!
Barnie wrote:Yennings
Not a bad effort that, your cheques in the post…
The main problem with not
The main problem with not using the road, is that you lose your rights as.. well, a ‘road user’. Which means having to stop and give way at every turning, and is generally slow, demeaning and unpleasant.
Not that using the roads can’t also be unpleasant (as demonstrated here), but at least it’s not self-inflicted or guaranteed.
driver screwed up by trying
driver screwed up by trying to overtake, as it really is his decision at the end of the day and he shouldn’t pay a blind bit of notice to anyone elses signals and gestures.
However works both ways, as a cyclist I am very very wary of how I signal and how it can be interpreted. REally is a case of if in doubt don’t. If you don’t want to be overtaken at a pinch point look and move over. Make it so you can’t be overtaken, it really isn’t that hard.
As for the cycle path issue, there really does need to be some government information campaigns on this.
Also, there seem to only
Also, there seem to only really be two types of ‘anti-cycling’ articles; motorists saying, “they should get off the road, as it is for cars”, and pedestrians saying, “they should get off the pavement, as it is for pedestrians”.
If these two groups got together, perhaps it would be clearer that urban spaces fundamentally require somewhere that unarguably “is for cyclists”, without depriving them of their rights as road users (as the cycle path in this video would do).
Until that happens, I think we’ll keep seeing inferences to cyclists infringing on the space of ‘others’, no matter how legally off the mark the claims are.
Yes, the driver was at fault
Yes, the driver was at fault for not forward planning.
But the cyclist was equally at fault for exactly the same reason.
If the cyclist had read the road and taken the primary position on the approach to the pinch-point, he would have prevented a potentially dangerous overtake and there would have been no problem.
Leaving space to be overtaken dangerously almost seems like a wish to be overtaken dangerously for the sake of some footage for Youtube.
Perhaps Mikey should think about educating himself before he talks about educating other road users.
Anybody else noticed that a
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.
Just the other day I had a
Just the other day I had a driver trying to “nudge” me into an optional cycling lane at a pinch point. Joy.
Man complaining about
Man complaining about invasion of privacy runs whining to the press and has his name, age and road published.
Also:
Ha!
I’ve debated with the man a
I’ve debated with the man a few times in fora and on twitter. He has strongly held opinions. Opinions I don’t entirely agree with. But I’d rather he did his stuff the way he does it, and represents his view forcefully, than have many of the other mealy-mouthed motor-centric cyclists that I encounter ‘stand up’ for my place on the roads.
As Confucius said, be careful
As Confucius said, be careful what you wish for…
As cyclists, we want more people on bikes. We also want proper segregated cycling infrastructures to accommodate them. of course, we want to reserve our right to travel on the road if that’s preferable and we want motorists to drive slower and with way more consideration.
Well, earlier this week, a cycle scheme was predicting 2 million extra cyclists commuting this summer (an exaggeration, granted) and councils and local authorities are building cycle infrastructures. If we’re not careful, we run the risk of sounding like we want to have our cake, and eat it…
dafyddp wrote:
As Confucius
Yes, this. This is precisely the problem there. Drivers’ attitudes regarding cyclists on the road are not going to change for the better with more segregated cycling infrastructure, in fact the effect would be quite the opposite I would imagine.
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.
This means the political will to see it through. This means more money to be put into enforcement of road rules. Cameras everywhere, zero tolerance on transgressions, with the revenue from fines put back into that very scheme.
Eventually it will sink in, even for the dumbest knuckledragger, that it’s not worth to endanger someone’s safety in order to save 5 seconds when it could, nay, will cost you several hundred quid.
userfriendly wrote:
We don’t
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…
Paul_C wrote:
userfriendly
With “we already have infrastructure” that needs to be made safer I was referring to our roads. Not painted “cycle lanes” etc.
Ride road most days, and to
Ride road most days, and to be honest the lane is quite narrow, the road would probably be safer widened and remove the shared path, further along the same road is a very narrow cycle lane.
An aside – assuming Mike is
An aside – assuming Mike is able bodied and whatnot – why ride a recumbent in London? It’s hell, surely? You’re low down, can’t see nearly so much of the road ahead, drivers can’t see you so easily, you’re slower, more vulnerable… why do that to yourself?
bashthebox wrote:An aside –
Dude… careful. That’s really close to the language some drivers use about all cycling.
Recumbents have their fans and that’s good enough for me. It’s a bonus that I think they look really cool.
So the driver pulled
So the driver pulled alongside the cyclist starts an argument about a cyclists right to be on the road and gets upset about it being publically available 8}
Agree to some degree about
Agree to some degree about making non-standard hand signals, it can cause confusion.
But having said that there have been a couple of occasions where I’ve had some idiot bearing down on me when there’s a hazard up ahead and I’ve stuck my right hand out as if to signal a right turn, but doing this just to get the fucker to keep their distance, it works (as a last resort).
And this video shows that
And this video shows that using the road instead of the cycle path is the safer option? 😕
The cyclist seems legally ok
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.
– 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.
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.
muffies wrote:
I’m not sure
It much depends on the state of the “bike lane”. Seeing how “bike lane” more often than not means “that shitty part of the road where glass shards and other car debris accumulate in and around deep pot holes that never get fixed”.
So yeah … I’m terribly sorry that my concern for my physical safety inconveniences some people in their speeding steel cages. But I’m not going to put myself at risk so they can be at the next red light 5 seconds sooner. And anyone asking me to do that can go fuck themselves. Get off the road if you can’t use it safely.
muffies wrote:- not ever
Where was the bit where he was trying to prove a point by not ever using the bike lane?
muffies wrote:- not ever
Except in that situation the cycle is “traffic” and frankly slowing the traffic down by a few seconds while they wait for a safe place to pass is not an issue, and if the driver thinks that 3 or 4 seconds on their journey is worth endangering someone’s life, they probably shouldn’t be driving
muffies wrote:- not ever
Eh? Since when does anyone have a right to overtake?
Especially where there’s a traffic island?
Especially when there isn’t room?
Especially when the road user being overtaking is explicitly indicating that they’re moving to the right?
On the contrary trying to overtake here violates several of the specific examples of “Dangerous Overtaking” as stated in the highway code, which could in theory ( if not in practise ) lead to a charge of “Dangerous Driving”. As well as looking after himself, Mikey might have helped the driver avoid causing a collision and this serious ( or some lesser ) charge.
But y’know, if the driver values his privacy so much as to write to the paper admitting performing a explicitly dangerous overtake, that’s up to him.
muffies wrote:
– not ever
Sorry, but while your first point about ambiguous signals might have merit, this bit annoys me. It seems to be based on the usual assumption that all motorists are there for totally unchallengeable and vitally important reasons (like ‘going a mile to the paper shop’ or ‘going for a drive for the sake of it’) while cyclists are just on the road getting in the way because they are messing about or being petulant.
Many cyclists avoid most cycle lanes because they know from experience they are more trouble than they are worth, and are generally only good for walking-pace cycling.
There are some I use (at least when not in a hurry) because I know them and know they are tolerable, but many are not worth bothering with, with the constant give-ways at side-roads, pedestrians walking in them, street furniture and trees in the middle of them, and cars parked on them, so if one doesn’t know the particular path one is likely to just ignore it.
You could equally ask whether the motorist was ‘proving a point’ by not using a different route or some other mode of transport.
muffies wrote:The cyclist
Then dont play the tribalism game.
Its about PEOPLE using forms of transport.
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.
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.
Boo fucking hoo!
muffies wrote:
not ever
muffies wrote:
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.
kie7077 wrote:muffies 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.
bikebot wrote:I’d quite like
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.
kie7077 wrote:muffies wrote:
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.
muffies wrote:
– hand signal
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.
Watching this video I
Watching this video I honestly cannot see what on earth the criticism of this cyclist is about.
He’s travelling at a good lick, following the rules of the road and the cretin that wanted to argue on the road instead of actually, ya know _paying attention to the road_, should just have sucked it up and got on with his life.
But no, Princess Rob, decided to drive parallel share his ignorance instead of getting on with his job.
Rob: man up and sort out your crap driving, or get off the roads.
Maybe mickey should post
Maybe mickey should post footage of his driving being so experienced, sadly experience doesn’t allows equal good.
If you look at the cycle path
If you look at the cycle path on that road (and incidentally read the comments in the newspaper link) it’s a discontinuous path that gives way to every side road and also runs alongside bus stops and other busy parts of the footpath.
If you told car drivers that we’ve “improved” their route to work by building them a “motorway” that they can have to themselves, but it’s narrower than the road, they have to stop and give way every few hundred yards and it’s littered with telegraph poles and lamp fixtures, they would quite rightly have a fit. However, this is the standard for most “cycle paths”.
It’s no wonder that if you want to get anywhere quickly, most reasonably quick cyclists just don’t bother.
Personally my response to “get on the cyclepath!” comments is “get on the bus!”
All quite depressing isn’t
All quite depressing isn’t it?
It saddens me that some cyclists should feel that roads should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
It saddens me that infrastructure put in place for our ‘benefit’ is deemed so unsuitable that many cyclists refuse to use it.
I’m saddened that the powers that be deem it necessary to provide separate pathways for use by cyclists in the first place… what exactly is the benefit to the cyclist?
It saddens me that driver confusion about whether cyclists should or shouldn’t use the roads/cycle paths is left unchallenged.
Why can’t we scrap all this segregation rubbish and instead spend all that money I hear being invested into cycling infrastructure on better education for all road users (cyclists, pedestrians, drivers) in how to safely get along….
My opinion is that drivers get so pissy with cyclists because we challenge them… we challenge their competence at driving… they meet us on the road, and they are not sure what to do… when its safe to pass, they lack the education.
They don’t want to sit back and assess the situation and pass when they know its safe, as they fear that hesitance will look to their driving peers will see them as weak or incompetent, so they strive to pass as soon as possible… we put them in an unpleasant mental place, and as is the human condition, they lash out at what they see as the cause… the cyclist, rather than learn the skills they need.
I agree with Ush – I haven’t
I agree with Ush – I haven’t seen the cyclist’s other videos or his Twitter posts but this video is pretty clear cut. The car driver attempted an overtake where there wasn’t room, which any half decent driver would’ve spotted. I’ve been driving cars for years as well as cycling and motorcycling and it was a clear example of poor anticipation by the driver.
There is no compulsion to use cycle lanes and since many are so badly laid out, it makes sense not to. The one in the video is discontinuous and while it may be ok for a child riding to school with a parent alongside, it’s not one a commuter would want to use. I’m not a fan of recumbents myself but they appeal to some people and the crap driving would’ve still been crap driving if the cyclist had been on an MTB, a hybrid or a roadbike.
The driver is an oaf. He threw a wobbly because he was embarrassed at his poor judgement being posted online, then made it worse for himself by complaining to the local paper. It is rather ironic that the ‘white van (wo?)man’ overtaking earlier does it properly.
The stuff about recumbent Mikey, or whatever his name is, is irrelevant. Yes I’m a London rider but I’ve never knowingly come across this bloke so don’t assume I’m a part of his ‘clique’.
Top 2 things that irritate
Top 2 things that irritate drivers…
1. Cyclists not using cycle paths where available.
2. Cyclists (almost always ‘roadies’) riding two abreast holding up traffic while they have a chin wag.
The driving in the video is
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.
Good he should be upset. He
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.
As a cyclist and as a
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.
Isn’t it about time
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.
So do you struggle to see
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?
So do you struggle to see
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?
bobdelamare wrote:Isn’t it
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!
bobdelamare wrote:Isn’t it
It’s his choice if he wants to risk it. Cycling two-abreast, or in pelotons, should be made illegal because that is a hazard to other road users.
bobdelamare wrote:Isn’t it
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….
bobdelamare wrote:Isn’t it
So the only road vehicles that should be legal are the ones manufactured specifically to be compatible with whatever cars are currently being manufactured? That car design should dominate the legality of absolutely everything else?
I take it you are employed by a pro-car lobbying organisation?
CM quote “Plan ahead and use
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
“I’ve never had a parking
“I’ve never had a parking fine…”
Good grief.