A driver has hit a cyclist on a newly-upgraded section of Cycle Superhighway 2 in London, before using the excuse “I’m pregnant and wearing glasses”.
Footage captured by another rider, who was cycling on the main carriageway at the time, shows the moment the driver of a Vauxhall Corsa turns left into the middle of a group of three cyclists, hitting the third with the side of her car.
Although cyclists riding straight along the route, which is mid-way through a major upgrade between Aldgate and Bow, have priority over turning traffic, some cyclists say side roads need to be improved to slow drivers down and encourage them to look more carefully before they turn across the bike path.
The rider, whose knees were bloodied in the collision, was wearing a hi-vis yellow jacket and had front and rear lights, but the driver claims she didn’t see him. She can be heard apologising before explaining she’s pregnant and wearing glasses. Unsurprisingly the helmet cam cyclist, who uses the name Romanian Cyclist, and the injured rider, say this is no excuse.
The injured cyclist says: “Sorry’s no good, you should be looking.”
TfL unveils junction designed to eliminate left turn danger for cyclists
The helmet cam cyclist had joined the main carriageway at a previous junction, where another driver waited to turn left across the cycle route, and captured the incident from behind the driver’s car.
Martin Porter QC, barrister and cycling advocate, says he would have exited the cycle superhighway at this point to avoid turning traffic, too.
Agree. Note the filming cyclist leaves the cycle track to take primary passing the junction. What I would do also. https://t.co/BI1aelsMXD
— Martin Porter QC (@MartinPorter6) November 29, 2015
Cycle Superhighway 2 is mid-way through a major upgrade that will see the majority of the route protected from traffic by concrete kerbs, with separate traffic light phases at major junctions to protect cyclists from left hooks. Road.cc reported on the first of these junctions in the summer.
The concrete kerbs disappear at side roads so motor traffic can turn, but a dotted line indicates riders using the route have priority over turning traffic. Some cyclists say the concrete kerb needs to continue closer to side roads to encourage drivers to slow down and look before turning.
CS2, in its earlier design, featured little more than just blue paint on the road, and the route became notorious when three cyclists died in three years 2011-2014 following collisions on the one mile route from Aldgate to Bow Roundabout. An extension, with protection from motor traffic, was built in 2012 from Bow to Stratford, but junction design on this section of CS2 was also criticised for providing too little protection to cyclists.






















54 thoughts on “Video: Driver left hooks cyclist on upgraded Cycle Superhighway”
“Martin Porter QC
“Martin Porter QC @MartinPorter6
Agree. Note the filming cyclist leaves the cycle track to take primary passing the junction. What I would do also. https://twitter.com/drmoroch0/status/670756751919198208 …
7:50 AM – 29 Nov 2015″
Damned if you use the cycle lane, damned if you don’t, that really is a very poor design. Pretty feeble excuse though. Another for the bingo card, I think.
Quote:
Correction on the report – DrMorocho tweeted the incident but wasn’t the cammer.
ron611087 wrote:
Correction on the report – DrMorocho tweeted the incident but wasn’t the cammer.
Thanks for pointing this out, I’ve now amended the article
Pointless crap infrastructure
Pointless crap infrastructure, there will be many, many more videos just like this.
Im really glad I don’t have to ride in London very often. With infrastructure like this I would rather mix it with the cars in the main lane, even given the extra aggression you’ll get from motorists for not using the cycle lane.
Pregnant and wearing glasses?
Pregnant and wearing glasses? Is that supposed to be an excuse? Pathetic. If you are that careless, you shouldn’t be driving at all. Quite clear from the video that she just didn’t bother to look. Dangerous driving prosecution required.
“I’m pregnant and wearing
“I’m pregnant and wearing glasses”
Great plea in mitigation – that should get her off with a slap on the wrist. I’d give her a life-time ban just for using that excuse.
I look forward to the day when it dawns on Britain’s judges that cyclists are not only vulnerable road users but human beings too – Not some inconvenient form of road litter that you’ll be tut-tutted at for driving over.
“We are just coming from a
“We are just coming from a funeral” was the excuse for pulling out in front of me.
terrible terrible road layout
terrible terrible road layout. Yes the blame is on the woman, but to feel that you’re safe racing up the inside of an indicating car in the dark is either the sign of bad design or bad cycling, too.
DrJDog wrote:
Sorry, but no way can you say that the cyclist was racing. I’d say he was just giving her credit for having peripheral vision. I’m not in favour of slaying the woman for this mistake, like some people on CC, but she was plain and simple, in the wrong…
DrJDog wrote:
Looked to me like a typical case of indicating while rotating the steering wheel to turn. I saw only 2 flashes of the indicator before the cyclist took to the air. That’s NOT NEARLY enough time to allow someone to react and brake . . even if he didn’t have right of way.
Doesn’t even have enough road
Doesn’t even have enough road sense to leave the car somewhere safe or even put the hazard warning on…
I am increasingly thinking that a driving test should be required every 5 years. It might catch out some of these clueless drivers. How they passed in the first place I’m not sure.
DaveE128 wrote:
How did she pass the test in the first place, well there are a few thoughts that come to mind:
1. took the test before she was pregnant… (young hot ladies can sometimes pass the test through looks alone, come on we’ve all heard the stories)
2. took the test in wales amidst a field of sheep
3. classic “now that I’ve passed the test, all this mirror-signal-meanouvre is just for losers, and so is looking before you change position/speed/direction on the road”
plenty of junctions like it,
plenty of junctions like it, It really is a fundemental failing of drivers to understand how priority works on turnings, YOU DO NOT HAVE IT, when crossing into a side road.
But how many drivers are aware of highway code rule 170? You can not assume you can turn into the side road and nothing will be there.
mrmo wrote:
It’s certainly a fundemental failure of the current driver training regime that no driver I’ve ever queried is aware pedestrians, who have started crossing, a side road have priority.
How are they being granted licences with this level of ignorance?
mrmo wrote:
170 doesn’t apply here. The priority is given to things on the side road. This situation was about crossing an adjacent lane, not a side road.
Quote:
Granted 170 isn’t the best example here, 183 does apply though as i read it, The point i am trying to make with quoting 170 is it just underlines the point that too many drivers seem to believe that the road has priority over everything. That placing a shielded lane next to the road reduces the importance of the shielded lane to that of a pavement and with it goes any perceived right at a junction (even though the pavement does have priority).
Are there any drivers who believe that if they are in the outside lane on a motorway they have priority over any car they overtake when they pull in and aim for an exit????
So why the difference when passing through a cycle lane????
and just having a read of the
and just having a read of the highway code, came across rule 183,
There really does need to be a fundemental rethink on how licencing works, will it happen? Will it f***!
As a former long time
As a former long long time motorbiker and now (5 years) bike rider i don’t think i’m riding like that, especially in the dark. He comes from behind the car, he is supposed to see the turning lights; how can he be sure that he’s seen by the driver ? It could have been much worse for him.
I surely don’t behave like that, even in the case the driver doesn’t put his turning lights on because there’s a significant probability that he turns left anyway; much too dangerous. Sure, you are on your own right, but does this help if you land in an armchair ? Some drivers are reckless but others just do errors because they are human like this lady apparently.
I’m riding my bike like i was motorbiking, with huge margins for errors because i can’t afford any problem.
frogg wrote:
It must be amazing to be as great as you. Please, talk some more about yourself so we can all bask in the reflected glory of your wisdom.
I just love it went a motor
I just love it went a motor biker / x motor biker, turning up to go give “cyclists” advise on how to ride. Just go an check out motor cyclists KIA states, despite being just 1% of road users motor bikers make up between 18-20% or road death. Cyclists 2% and 10% respectively.
If the cyclist in this case had been on a motor bike he would have killed himself head on into a tree or a wall, long before a car failed to give way when they should.
Housecathst wrote:
As a long time cyclist and motorcyclist (and car driver), I find your comment offensive and insulting.
OldRidgeback wrote:
It was intended to be offensive to self righteous motorcyclists, make of that what you will.
No excuse for this. There was
No excuse for this. There was a very obvious cycleway, the rider was clearly illuminated with flashing lights and the driver should have showed enormous caution when making the manoeuvre. But in her defence, she would have been dependent on a small wing mirror on the far side of the car, which may have been showing a number of lights and been hard to interpret, and looking over her left shoulder at a very acute angle, where the rear window pillars would have created some wide blind spots.
To avoid such problems, the cycle path should be positioned at least 5 m from the motor carriageway so that cars can start to turn and then look left and right at a much shallower angle. This is a collision that was designed into the road layout. Very poor.
I love the way some on this
I love the way some on this website dismiss cyclists who are also motorists, who have probably received more formal road training than they have and are more aware than any other road users of the dangers….
It depresses me when I see this sort of response because it shows how obdurate and blinkered ‘cycling communistas’ are. I don’t ride a motorbike, but I have learnt a lot by following the way they approach obstacles. There are good ones and bad ones, but the good ones are worth following and listening too.
As a motorcyclist, doing a
As a motorcyclist, doing a ‘lifesaver’ over the shoulder check when turning either right or left was literally drummed into my head during training. I don’t think that it is considered so important when learning to drive a car and therefore these kind of left hook incidents in this type of cycle infrastructure are going to be a regular event. Sure, car drivers should be aware that they just overtook a cyclist before they are about to turn left, be aware of the cycleway priority and basically observe properly, but in regular driving having something come from behind and on the nearside is unusual, dare I say, unexpected.
As others have said, better to use the roadway if you are keeping pace with the traffic flow.
This is why everyone who
This is why everyone who bangs on about cycling infrastructure being key to making cycling safer is wasting their time. If this kind of thing can happen on a “Cycle Superhighway ” it just shows they are a waste of time and not where the problem really is. People don’t drive properly, they don’t take enough care of themselves or others around them.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
These things aren’t exclusive.
the “problem” as i see it is
the “problem” as i see it is that the danger hasn’t been eliminated by the cycle route. A main road is rarely dangerous, the junctions are the problem. Unless these are addressed you are wasting your time. Traffic lights, speed bumps, etc etc, there has to be something that forces an action.
mrmo wrote:
This junction could have been better designed, the junction should be slimmer so the car has to slow more, forcing the driver to have more time to look for cyclists, the junction could also be raised, again to raise the drivers awareness that there is a cycle lane.
I’ve looked at the Enfield mini-holland plans and they do these things, it looks like they really went and did their homework and got it right.
I’ve watchedthis a couple of
I’ve watchedthis a couple of times and car makes no contact with the cyclist. It looks as though they put the brakes on too hard, lock up and go over the bars. if they had stayed off the brakes they would have sailed through and been away.
Darkhairedlord wrote:
Yes it does look like no one actually hit him, but it would take a brave/stupid rider to not slow down when you see a car come across you.
(just think of the carnage disc brakes and all that power will cause…
)
Contrary to Martin Porter,
Contrary to Martin Porter, while the cam-cyclist is on the lane at the start of the video & do leave it, it is after they pass the first junction & a turning car (a Corsa?) waits for them to clear the junction.
Perhaps unnerved by this they move into the traffic lane where they observe a second car (also a Corsa?) turning without making sure the interior lane is clear causing the cyclist to brake hard & go over his handlebars.
Without douubt the fault is the turning vehicle’s & the road designers for not giving the turning a tighter radius & widening the strip between lane & traffic thereby moving the cycle lane more into the driver’s field of vision as they manoevre rather than behind their heads.
tarquin_foxglove wrote:
Please don’t fall into the trap of blaming the vehicle, or using language which implies it: it is always the driver at fault. Dehumanising it like that removes the responsibility and excuses drivers from fault. We should be very careful how we use language so that we don’t inadvertently let drivers off the hook by blaming the car.
burtthebike wrote:
Spot on, squire….how would this look: “It’s occurred because the Colnago failed to spot the impending danger posed bythe Corsa. The Corsa, on the other hand, failed to see the Colnago coming, bla-bla bla…” This collision has bugger-all to do with the make of car—lay the blame (or the excuse) on the people involved in the RTC. Cars don’t make decisions, so let’s stop tacitly implying that they do. And (warming to his admittedly off-message theme) Reeva Steenkamp wasn’t killed “by” a 9mm Smith and Wesson. Some-one was in charge of it, just as it’s not left-turning trucks that cause so many tragedies—it’s left-turning truck-drivers. I could go on–and on—but I won’t ‘cos I already have, innit.
That’s a very painful set of knees you got there. I wish you a speedy recovery, old bean.
How is “I’m wearing glasses”
How is “I’m wearing glasses” an excuse for not seeing something? “I’m NOT wearing my glasses” is a more understandable excuse (although also an admission of guilt). I think the point of glasses is that they help you to see…
On a separate matter- I’m a cyclist and a driver and I’d missed rule 183 about priority is given to the people on a cycle lane, if you are crossing it. In all honesty I’ve always done that anyway as it seems logical, but a lot of people really don’t in my experience (there’s one cycle lane that I use where buses going in and out of a bus stop (and crossing a cycle lane to do so) don’t feel the need to check for other road users before making their move- they treat the cycle lane as a buffer to help them get into the “main ” traffic lanes)
brooksby wrote:
This may seem bizarre, but i am of the opinion that glasses wearers often have better eyesight than non wearers.
You know you have s*** eyes so you have checkups, wear glasses etc. Too many people who SHOULD wear glasses, particularly in later life, aren’t really aware how crap their sight has got and never go for check ups because they have nothing wrong….
I would be terrified to ride
I would be terrified to ride or drive in London or any big city. The problem I can spot immediately is that there is so much going on around everybody, streetlights, vehicle lights and reflections off ever surface. It is so easy to miss a cycle in all of that. Her speed was pretty slow, she just didn’t see him. The cyclist was travelling at a reasonable speed but didn’t assess the danger of a an open junction approaching.
An insurance change to presume liability might make drivers double check every manoeuvre. Cyclists should beware that they are vulnerable
Another case of indicating
Another case of indicating and immediately turning without looking by the car driver.
If the driver had looked in their mirror first, then signalled, then maneuvered, she may have seen the cyclist properly and having indicated early the rider may have slowed down anticipating this maneuver. Instead the glasses wearing, pregnant woman driver decided that she had prioroty over the non road tax paying cyclist and used the excuse of her physical conditions to justify her ignorance.
webster wrote:
Round where I live I’m sure most drivers go by “maneuver, mirror, signal” – which is why I always ride with a camera. Although this year’s earlier hit and run incident with a taxi was a good reason to get it (the Police have been useful and not done a thing – not even a crime reference).
As for reckoning that if the rider had stayed off the brakes they’d be alright – that’s not a chance I’d be willing to take with a car coming towards me. They might not even notice me until after the collision with the front end.
I hope you were being ironic about “road tax” – you know there is no such thing (even though Post Offices insist on advertising it as such. If you have to call it “car tax” since apparently most of the population are too thick to understand what Vehicle Excise Duty is.
As I see it, the focus on
As I see it, the focus on road infrastructure is misleading if people do not know the rules and how to use it.
For me it’s as much about education as it is painting lanes in lurid colours and siphoning off cycling traffic. I don’t believe you really need all of it and I do perfectly well without it.
People who argue about road design have buried themselves down a cul-de-sac of ideology.
While we’re doing the
While we’re doing the motorbike thing …
Has anyone tried adapting or adopting Duncan MacKillop’s philosophy “No surprise – no accident” from motorbiking to cycling ?
http://nosurprise.org.uk/background-and-aims/
http://www.totalcontroltraining.co.uk/
He seems so confident in his defensive riding that he blames all victims !
http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3592.html
Harsh, but I don’t disagree. I’m sure there will always be surprises, but I’m also sure that everyone can think and act to reduce them close to zero.
Trouble is we feel ‘Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile’ so we accept the odd crash as part of a learning/teaching process. She hopefully won’t do it again. We don’t want what remains of ‘our rights’ to be eroded any further.
If we started giving way to others that don’t have priority over us, we are training them that ‘It is OK to drive at them : they will get out of the way!’ (Like that scene in Avatar.)
Cyclists are now fast enough to learn from moto techniques, but we are understandably averse to the stop+go that is mere expense if you’re not self-propelled.
Paranoia could prevent progress.
I haven’t read into MacKillop – his terminology is rather strange (to me). Overthinking ?
Not mainstream, but then the past record of motorbiking isn’t great.
Certainly food for thought, and worth a glance.
Edit : PS : He doesn’t seem well-known, even in motorbiking circles – maybe the academic stuff is over their heads, too ?
http://www.visordown.com/forum/advanced-motorcycle-riding/anyone-know-duncan-mackillop/165234.html
Eric D wrote:
I’ve had many discussions with Duncan and in road safety circles his views are regarded with some scepticism. He makes many good points but does err towards victim blaming very often. I have tried to explain how some crashes are definitely not the fault of the victim in any respect and yet he says this is not the case, so I find fault with soem of his reasoning.
Rule 183 notwithstanding, CS2
Rule 183 notwithstanding, CS2 should continue across the junction with kerbs right up to almost level with the side road and on a raised surface. It looks like it becomes one of the much-derided old paint-only lanes a few metres before the junction, leaving cyclists in exactly the wrong place as motorists barrel round the corner without looking.
Being pregnant and having
Being pregnant and having glasses is no excuse. Anyone who is not able to look to see if it is safe when making such a turn is not fit to drive.
I agree that segrated cycle lanes need kerbs right up to the junction to prevent cars from making fast turns. Forcing cars to make a much tighter turn with kerbs going right up to the junction will force the cars to go much slower and will have a better view due to the tighter turn.
Yes ok she was in the wrong,
Yes ok she was in the wrong, but there are a lot of things wrong with that cycle highway to the point that it actually makes it more dangerous at each and every junction.
As I understand it, these
As I understand it, these “superhighways” are supposed to be attractive, safe, convenient and accessible. The vast majority of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles occur at junctions, and the superhighways don’t make junctions safer and only protect against the much less likely rear shunt, so they aren’t fit for purpose.
I don’t think the comment “I
I don’t think the comment “I’m pregnant and wearing glasses” should be taken as the driver offering an excuse. There’s a lot of adrenaline pumping and she’s in a confrontation with an understandably angry man. In that situation, “I’m pregnant and wearing glasses” means “Please don’t hit me”.
I’d agree with Frogg’s post
I’d agree with Frogg’s post above. I don’t really have enough context from this video though. My main question is whether the motorist ever passed the cyclist, or did the cyclist (who appears to be maintaining a pretty agressive clip) simply catch up with the driver. If it’s the former, the driver was negligent because she should have been aware that the cyclist was in her vincinity; if it’s the latter, I can see how this could happen: not many drivers are going to check their side view mirrors to see if a cyclist is coming up on the bike lane.
It also may be that she turned on her turn signal belatedly about the same time the cyclist was catching up with her.
An unfortunatly event and I’m glad the cyclist wasn’t seriously hurt. I have seen far more egregious examples of bad driving than this however.
xbr976 wrote:
except that 2 other cyclists passed the driver first, enough to think, oh hold on are there more? rather.
As to the no accident without fault on both sides mentioned above, what about being wiped out from behind when following a straight course? which seems to happen all too often.
Hi everyone I am the cyclist
Hi everyone I am the cyclist who was involved in the accident on the clipabove and I would like to thank the gentleman who caught the whole thing on video and released it because without that I wouldn`t have the drivers details. Also like to thank the people who stopped to check on me. I am well andrecovering frommy injuries but not been on a my bike seens. Here is the picture of the damage.
ra786 wrote:
Ouch! But never mind you, how’s the bike?
Hi every one, yes am the
Hi every one, yes am the cyclist in the video clip that was injured and I would like to thank the gentalmen who calls himself the romanian cylist that caght the whole think in cam because without that I would not have the details of the driver. I would like to also thank all the people who stopped to check on me at the time. Iam recovering well but not been able to ride my bike yet. Here is a picture of the damage to my knees.
Ouch! GWS and good luck with
Ouch! GWS and good luck with your insurance claim.
CS2 was meant to be ground
CS2 was meant to be ground breaking infrastructure. It’s ended up poorly executed (for the parts that after 11 months of chaos during the constructions are actually finished and open), and for this cyclist worse than before. The segregation in many of the completed parts isn’t wide enough for two bikes. It weaves in and out rather than just being straight. It goes up to pavement level, down to road level for no obvious reason. Bus stop islands are too small for the number of passengers waiting (Mile end an example). The new left hand filters mean cyclists get a small window to progress on green (its better to stay out in the traffic which gets 3 or 4 times the time on green). The segregation forces you into the left hook danger zone. Most of the time you can’t move out to avoid the zone, whereas previously you could take up primary and avoid the left hook risk. Cars edge out into the cycle lane, again you have no where to go.
Frankly the risk to cyclists in the last 11 months during the works has been ridiculous and is a clear signal that the people carrying out the works and those that planned the works, are not the right people for the job of creating “world-class” cycling infrastructure. Oh did I mention they built sections and forgot that it rains in the UK, so had to dig them up again to install drains. Says it all.