Chris Boardman has weighed into a debate about a close passing lorry that was filmed apparently dangerously close to his mother while on a ride with the Birkenhead North End Cycling Club.
Aldi, whose branded truck was being driven by a Broadhurst employee, argued that the pass was -perfectly safe, but Boardman questioned the decision, saying on Twitter: “Is this considered OK?”
He added: “Regardless of cyclists, no excuses for vehicle to pass close at high speed to a human being, none.
“If riding single file, I guarantee you the truck would pass the same distance from the riders at same high speed.
“Wonder how you’d feel if that was your kids/mother/sister, would it still be OK?”
Another user responded saying: “HGV had empty lane to pass properly so why not use it? too fast and in wet conditions too. despicable.”
A 15 year old cyclist uploaded the video to YouTube under the moniker TheTruckSimCyclist.
He added: “There was no need for this driver to overtake a group of cyclists this closely.”
He said the response from the Transport Company) was as follows [sic]:
“DEAR MR ********
I HAVE TODAY TAKEN ADVICE WITH REGARDS TO THE VIDEO YOU HAVE POSTED ONTO YOUTUBE AND THE DRIVER OF THE BROADHURST TRANSPORT UNIT DID GIVE AMPLE ROOM FOR OVER TAKING.
TAKING IN TO CONCIDERATION THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD YOU ALSO PUT OTHER PEOPLE AT RISK.
AT THE BEGINING OF THE VIDEO IT SHOWS THAT THE ROAD WAS WIDE AND THE CYCLIST’S WERE DOUBLE BREAST BUT THIS WOULD STILL HAVE GIVEN THE DRIVER AMPLE OF TIME TO MAKE A CLEARING TO PASS,
AS THE ROAD SHOW THE ARROW GOING TO A NARROW ROAD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER IF THE CYCLIST’S WERE TO MOVE TO SINGLE FILE AS CONCIDERATION HAS TO WORK FROM ALL ROAD USERS.
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD. YES YOU ALSO COULD HAVE PUT PEOPLE AT RISK,
IT HAS TO WORK BOTH WAY. YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO SINGLE FILE WHILST TRAVELING ON NARROW ROAD.
ONCE AGAIN THE DRIVER DID GIVE AMPLE OF ROOM.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR LOCAL COUNCIL WITH REGARDS TO A CYCLE LANE.
Last year we reported how Boardman said that close shaves with traffic when riding a bike are critical to people’s future decisions to cycle – and should be measured.
The data would also be a clear indication of whether cycle infrastructure is working or not, he said, as near misses would decrease dramatically in areas with good traffic layout.
Writing in support of The Near Miss Project, which has catalogued the daily cycling experience of more than 1,500 cyclists across the UK, Boardman said: “Many people in this country will tell you that cycling is safe, and the statistics do back that up. You have more chance of being killed walking a mile than you do cycling a mile and there is just one fatality for the equivalent of every 1,000 times cycled around the Earth.
“However, what those statistics don’t tell you is what cycling on our roads is actually like and whether or not the experience is an enjoyable one. This is a critical thing to acknowledge, as we make decisions – such as whether to cycle in the first place – based as much on how we feel as on the facts.”
79 thoughts on “Chris Boardman’s horror at video of lorry close-passing his mother”
There were arrows telling
There were arrows telling motorists to be aware that the road was narrowing, but the lorry driver just HAD TO GET IN FRONT. The pass itself: IMO too close, but typical (“just another day at the office “, as they say)
There’s an O Licence that
There’s an O Licence that needs objecting to at renewal time as it not being administered by a competent person. Which set of traffic commissioners should we write to?
The letter from the transport
The letter from the transport company is by someone who not only can’t write, but isn’t very good at thinking either.
The claim that the lorry gave ample room is wrong, as the person would know if they were familiar with the Highway Code.
As for the point that ‘concideration’ has to work both ways, it’s an argument you’d expect, but that doesn’t make it any less lame. If the people on bikes were standing on their saddles, juggling, and weaving all over the road, it’s still not a reason to put their lives in danger. And in the real world, not a fantasy one, it is only ever the big truck which could kill the people riding bikes, not the other way round.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Rereading the article, how do we know that the response was from the hauliers? If it is, it’s pretty appalling and doesn’t show them in a good light. But it reads more like some troll off a local paper comment page IMO.
Way to close in my opinion.
Way to close in my opinion. But the thing that amazed me was the total lack of reaction from the cyclists. Not even a shake of the head. It obviously happens too often.
What’s sad is that I watch
What’s sad is that I watch this and my initial reaction is that it’s not too bad. This is because we’ve come to expect ludicrous unsafe driving as a normal occurrence. The truck driver was clearly contravening the Highway Code and the response from the transport company is unbelievable – they are in no way qualified as to judge what is safe or not.
Why couldn’t the driver just slow down and wait? It’s cretins like this that make me think twice about heading out for a ride.
If it was a car approaching
If it was a car approaching the narrow road, it should show some consideration and half in size for the benefit of the truck.
This firm needs a visit from
This firm needs a visit from the Transport trainers at British Gypsum. I wrote to them recently commending the consistent attitudes and behaviours of their drivers. For the last three years I’ve commuted unlit country roads and A-roads daily and am passed by half a dozen of their wagons. They always wait patiently regardless of flat roads or hills, give loads of passing width and respond with the indicators when I acknowledge them. If one company can have all of their drivers do this, any firm can. It starts at the top and trickles down. Clearly Broadhurst and Aldi need challenging, and a lesson in grammar too.
That letter is a sad
That letter is a sad indictment of this country’s education system. It staggers me that whoever wrote that has been placed in some position of responsibility.
When a lorry comes this
When a lorry comes this “close” in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I wave the driver thanking him for the space. It’s usually just around half of meter of space that those big lorries and busses give you here. Still a long way to go for Balkans.
The driver of the flatbed
The driver of the flatbed found that extra couple of feet which can make such a huge difference in margin for error, especially with the turbulent bow wave of displaced air that large vehicles generate.
That response beggars belief. I find it very surprising that someone so patently lacking in basic written communication skills has authority to represent any professional organisation.
I don’t think for a minute
I don’t think for a minute the person writing the repsonse has a CPC sounds more like a traffic clerk. Far too close in my opinion and down to poor training from whoever does their driver assessment’s, maybe there should be a module built into the driver cpc for periodic training.
Evidence like this should be passed to the local traffic commissioner who can look into the conduct of the driver on their O licence watch list. Mine’s wouldn’t get away with that.
I’m almost as depressed by
I’m almost as depressed by the lack of literacy of the reply as by the quality of the driving.
I mean, maybe it’s forgiveable if they don’t actually employ any administrative/secretarial staff and it was just written by whoever was available, and in fact it’s someone whose proper job is driving a lorry. But if it’s someone specifically employed to write things and communicate, that’s quite embarrassing in what it says about the UK educational system.
(And why are they SHOUTING?)
Predictable victim blaming
Predictable victim blaming from a transport company there. Where’s the professional embarrassment that one of their drivers is incapable of overtaking competently? If there’s enough space ahead to overtake, there’s enough space to use the other lane and give adequate room to other road users.
The riders should report the
The riders should report the driver for careless/dangerous driving to the local police.
The riders should report the
The riders should report the driver for careless/dangerous driving to the local police.
I’m glad I’m a trucker at
I’m glad I’m a trucker at times. I waited patiently for a mile and a half yesterday to overtake a cyclist on a road that was a bit twisty and had the odd unfortunately timed oncoming car. I guess I lost maybe 3 minutes compared to the 40mph I could technically have been travelling at.
Given the appaling conditions and the headwind, he was doing well to be moving along at 20mph.
I overtook carefully, giving him plenty of room and 400 metres later found a new set of roadworks with a red light to hold me up. I then lost over 3 minutes waiting there.
There is *nothing* important enough to overtake inconsiderately or dangerously. There *will* be further delays.
My only criticism of the cyclist was that he didn’t take primary position at all, even through the pinch points with traffic islands where a repmobile would have squeezed through.
The group in the video were 2 abreast taking the lane, that idiot driving needs a clue hammering in to his thick skull.
Speed and proximity are too
Speed and proximity are too high and too close, but unfortunately (for me) that is probably a ‘safe’ pass in comparison to N/R roads here in Ireland where the speed limit can be 100kph (normally 80kph) and usually no run off, except into a ditch….
There are good, curteous drivers (HGV etc – usually the most curteous) – but all too often (car/4 x 4) drivers will not even cross the white line to pass, or pass when oncoming traffic ‘should’ exclude it…
They just do not care…those wasted 3-10 seconds are too precious for them…
Probably a note to Aldi would
Probably a note to Aldi would be more effective…
I’ve cycled that road many a
I’ve cycled that road many a time and I can confirm that it’s downright unsafe. HGVs should be restricted to motorways only (and 30mph) at weekends.
Perhaps the chairman of aldi
Perhaps the chairman of aldi and the driver and the author of the letter would care to stroll along a train platform between the white and yellow lines while a train is coming through.
The lorry in front had no trouble carrying out a safe pass. Aldi lorry should have followed suit as there was no oncoming traffic.
Do they really feel the lane was wide enough for a safe pass without crossing the white line if the cyclists were single file?
Clearly it is not as the author points out the lane had just narrowed.
So since the lorry must cross the white line to pass any number of cyclists he should make full use of the oncoming lane (which must be empty for a safe overtake) and if he does it matters not whether cyclists are single file. Or two abreast.
Further the driver cannot see what is in the oncoming lane he has moved in to because he is not as far out as the previous lorry. He cannot possibly see past it. If there turns out to be a vehicle coming the other way he will avoid by crushing the cyclists. The safe course is to wait until he can see the road is clear before carrying out a proper overtake. But that might cosy him 20 seconds so better to endanger people.
Aldi scum!
wycombewheeler wrote:
A more accurate test would to be expected to hop and balance on one leg whilst the train passed. And even then you’d have the comfort of knowing the train can’t deviate. Perhaps that’s an experience every large vehicle driver should have to go through before passing their LGV test.
Nowhere in the law does it
Nowhere in the law does it compel drivers to pass as soon as possible. Nowhere is there a punishment for not passing. And nowhere does it state it’s ok to put another road user’s life at stake just to prevent a driver from needing to slow down and pick a safe moment to overtake in the other lane. It’s shocking that Aldi think that passing this close to a cyclist, regardless of where in the road they are positioned, is OK. One can only assume they support lazy driving and putting fellow humans live’s at risk merely in order to potentially save a few minutes in their logistics process – clearly those saved pennies are worth more than a human life.
maldin wrote:
I suspect at the heart of it,the lorry driver/firm have never been in the cyclists position so theyve defaulted to thinking a “safe” pass is simply where youve left enough room not to collide with the thing you are overtaking,, thats their logic, well we didnt hit you so clearly left enough room,but they (much like bus drivers) dont really understand how much turbulent wash their vehicles create even on a dry day, really Chris needs to invite them out on ride and give them a go to see how they like it.
Awavey wrote:
True. You get that when riding in bus lanes, with the bus driver gesticulating for you to move over out of his way. Invariably, this is during rush hour, with solid traffic to the right. Makes no difference if I’m one inch or four feet out from the kerb, he’s going to have to move into that traffic queue to get past me so it doesn’t matter what I do; he’d be better off shouting at the drivers to his right..,
I just contacted Aldi
I just contacted Aldi customer services. I suggest that rather than just posting opinions on here, pointlessly, we should all do likewise.
Aldi should realise that this is costing them in reputation, brand, and so ultimately money. They will then put pressure on the haulier (or sack them). Word will get around, and some good might come of this. If lorry drivers realise that getting caught on camera being dangerous towards cyclists, will lose them their jobs, then they will change their behaviour.
But it needs more than lots of cyclists just ranting on a forum!!!
I don’t work for BP, I never
I don’t work for BP, I never have worked for BP, I don’t really think “big oil” do the planet much good BUT THEIR DRIVERS ARE AWESOME!!! I have had about half a dozen tankers come past me in the last month or so, and they could teach almost any driver a thing or two on how to pass bikes. 🙂
muppetkeeper wrote:
My wife works at BP head office in Milton Keynes and I had to comment on your post. Some would say I’m not impartial but I will gladly share this as quite simply BP deserve praise for their policy.
If any employee is caught on their phone whilst driving they are dismissed, this applies to personal time and not just company time.
The tanker drivers are actually professional drivers. Their training and insight into vulnerable road users particularly is I would say unprecedented amongst big business.
BP don’t make a big deal about a lot of their policies but I’ve always thought they should. Nice to see people noticing this out and about.
Aldi service contact details.
Aldi service contact details….
Email
customer.service@aldi.co.uk
Telephone
0800 042 0800*
Write to us
Aldi Stores, Holly Lane, Atherstone, Warwickshire CV9 2SQ
muppetkeeper wrote:
Thanks for posting that, I’ve just written to them.
Is it any coincidence that
Is it any coincidence that Aldi sounds a bit like Audi? 😉
IGMC! 🙂
As suggested already I just
As suggested already I just emailed Aldi customer services, if enough people email them they are bound to react.
rule 163 here shows what
rule 163 here shows what ample room looks like.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
what I see in the video does not look like this.
As to two abreast, since the cyclist in the yellow top is in the secondary position as advised by the government approved cycle training, and the cylist on the left is in fact riding in the guttur, no road users have been inconvenienced here.
Road users have only been placed at risk by the actions of the driver. (as usual) In other news today a car has apparently left the road and hit pedestrians in Guildford. strange that impacts with pedestrians are either by cyclists or vehicles, never by bikes or drivers.
Test-send
Test-send
I contacted aldi customer
I contacted aldi customer service and they have emailed me today. They say they will pass it on to their transport dept.
robert posts child wrote:
me too, perhaps they were inundated.
looking at the pass, I would put this in the ‘uncomfortable’ rather than ‘terrifying’ category. It was opnly the response and the description of ‘ample room’ that led me to complain.
As a cyclist and driver who
As a cyclist and driver who uses that road, the A540 at two mills,beween Chester and Neston just a hundred yards past the famous eureka cyclists cafe, that overtake was unsafe, and it was only due to skill and experience of the cyclists that they where not run over, there have been 2 fatalities just behind the riders, having ghost bikes installed to comerorate their sad deaths, and also 2 cyclists have been hit by a van in the opposite direction, and there may well be more un recorded near misses, we as cyclists have asked CWAC the local council for a segregated cycle route useing part of the footway and been refused . Me like a lot of other cyclists now try to avoid using that road due to the dangers of speeding drivers, in cars and lgv,s and little or no police enforcement of driving laws. We now look forward to the responce from aldi , because this video is going viral, and they must make a responce,about the driving behaviour and standard of driving of one of their subcontracted truck driving companies drivers.
What’s the stopping distance
What’s the stopping distance of that truck in that weather? That was a terrible pass, especially as the opposite lane was empty.
And as for their response, if they are going to suggest it takes two and that the cyclists should show “concideration” (really?!) they should at least get someone who can write in English.
I have emailed them, and I won’t be shopping there any more.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
If I stopped frequenting every business whose drivers drive like fools, well then I think I’d have to sell up, go off-grid, move to the forest, and become a full-time spoon whittler!
Regular occurence round where
Regular occurence round where I live, unfortunately nothing new to see in that vid.
Try commuting around Bristol!
Hubbabubba wrote:
I do! Fun, ain’t it
Hubbabubba wrote:
Same here, but the less we say and do about it, the more it will keep happening. I’ve shared this on Facebook and written to Aldi; it isn’t much but it is better than nothing.
I would say that was an
I would say that was an ‘average’ pass distance. If that was the worst thing that happened to me on a ride, I would consider the ride a safe one. The driver was too close to the lorry in front at that speed in those conditions.
Every ride that I go on has several closer passes than that , usually within the first two miles as my area is populated with retarded scum.
It was not a text book pass, but more unpleasant than dangerous. I think the driver is getting an unfair trial in this case.
If we make a big deal out of an incident like this, then people will resent us even more than they do already.
millhouse wrote:
I’m fine with a bit of resentment – drivers who are stupid enough to think there’s an ‘us’ will already resent people on bikes.
It’s the punishment passes and squashing of ‘us’ that I take issue with. I’m not over the moon about fellow cyclists preaching tolerance of motorists’ threatening behaviour either.
Without wishing to stir it up
Without wishing to stir it up over the “highway code” advice for riding two abreast. It should be safer, but it’s not and here is why. I think we seek a little too much protection behind a document and the law, at the expense of common sense.
I can only attest to my wife, who whilst riding two abreast on a 1/2 tonne horse had a car drive straight through the horse, leaving Mrs unconscious on the road, the horse minus a leg jumping around on the unconscious wife. Clearly the car made an error, they were really sorry, but that didn’t prevent a dead horse and a wounded rider.
Without significant numbers of a group, two abreast is perhaps viewed as an inconvenience for the driver and dispatched as an overtake accordingly. Psychological perhaps, but two people’s disapproving glares in the mirror will not keep the driver awake at night.
Clearly the lorry driver is wrong in the clip above, and I will not blame the riders for taking their rightful position on the road. But, exactly as Chris says himself with regards to helmets, we take responsibility for our own safety in the first instance before other control measures, and wait in hope for public attitude /cycling infrastructure to change.
Windydog wrote:
Awful, and I hope your wife recovered OK? Point I was going to make, is that many motorists are happy to give plenty of space/slow down/&c. for horses but not for cyclists. Is this because a horse will actually damage their car significantly? So it all comes down to ‘might is right’ again – if we start mounting rebar posts sticking out from our bikes until we look like something out of Mad Max, will motorists start overtaking properly…?
[/quote]
[/quote]
Awful, and I hope your wife recovered OK? Point I was going to make, is that many motorists are happy to give plenty of space/slow down/&c. for horses but not for cyclists. Is this because a horse will actually damage their car significantly? So it all comes down to ‘might is right’ again – if we start mounting rebar posts sticking out from our bikes until we look like something out of Mad Max, will motorists start overtaking properly…?
[/quote]
Yes, wife was fine physcially in the end, psychologically less so and has meant no more horse riding and the end of a passionate pursuit. None of which is recognised or compensated in a court, regardless of blame. But thanks for your concern.
But yes, “might is right” and that is just a sad reality that we as cyclists do not accept because we feel entitled to be treated equally on shared roads. Cyclists are not at all dominant, even though some may try to believe otherwise by action or gesticulation. Cars and lorries will not get smaller or less comfortable, the box around the average motorist will only serve to make them feel more secure. Clarkson has the best idea, the best addition to road safety would be a metal spike sticking out of the steering wheel aimed at your head, but I love the idea of a mad max bike with electric shock fields around it for vehicles that stray too close.
The only answer is to segregate or take steps to give us a better chance. In this case, on a narrowing road ahead, perhaps go to single file. It doesn’t help for our status though…
Windydog wrote:
I think I get your message, and where you’re coming from, and I’ve quoted you very selectively there^… But I really don’t believe that cowering in the fear or perception that cycling is unsafe helps anyone, nor does emploring cyclists to ignore rights we have, or the highway code.
Doesn’t taking your argument to its conclusion result in nobody cycling as it’s just too dangerous?
davel wrote:
Understand your message, but not in agreement of the route to the conclusive cycling defeat. Cycling is not unsafe, it just carries risk. B****cking drivers for bad driving, and getting people sacked will not reduce that risk tomorrow, or likely within this decade.
The market forces will mean that we don’t get trained BP drivers everywhere as in some of the other threads, I wish it did, but BP (post Macondo) understand risk these days very well and they know a cyclist under a BP tanker will hurt them repuationally, Aldi who sub contrcact their operation, perhaps less so.
What i’m suggesting, is that attritional warfare against a sometimes ignorant ,and numerically superior motorist is folly, where perhaps a more directed and manoeuvrist approach might work. Government policy for dedicated cycling infrastructure, or safe lanes, has to be the end game, anything else is token. Its cost effective for the government to just watch the motorist and cyclist fight each other rather than both groups attack the referee.
Control measures of helmets, hi-viz, positioning, more speed even, of course these can all help. But a 70kg person on a 10kg bike, even with a loud angry voice will lose against a truck driven by a numpty.
They don’t appear to be
They don’t appear to be advocating cycle lanes or for that matter, riding in single file, on their own website https://www.aldi.co.uk/specialbuys/all-specialbuys/sports-and-outdoor/c/sports-and-outdoor
Nevermind – I’ve fixed it for them…
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59646998/fdsjj009_po67444/aldi.html
Isn’t Aldi a member of
Isn’t Aldi a member of British Cycling and Boardman’s #Choosecycling network?
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/aldi-is-the-first-british-supermarket-to-choosecycling/018462
Surely British Cycling should be censoring such a prominent member!
onthebummel48 wrote:
“censuring”, I think?
I didn’t think the pass was
I didn’t think the pass was THAT close. There’s no reaction from the riders – if it was close you’d expect something. It’s hard to tell from the camera – but I’d think about 3 feet was left ?
More would be nice but when you get vehicles coming within a foot when the road is wide – that’s when I get annoyed.
I’d avoid that road anyway – there are nicer routes around.
Sometimes this is a scary
Sometimes this is a scary place to come. So much bias in the comments section that it would be hilarious if you weren’t all serious.
There is nothing dangerous about that pass. And the best evidence for that is the reaction of the cyclists themselves. None of them even flinch.
If anyone on here really thinks that is dangerous, or illegal, I suggest that you wrap yourselves up in cotton wool and go and lie down in a dark room because the world outside must be absolutely fucking terrifying for you!
As for starting some internet rage against Aldi for the behaviour of their driver. He doesn’t even work for them! Even if he did, what do you want them to do? Fire him because you think he behaved badly? Imagine if someone started videoing you at work, how long would you last before someone with an opinion went running off to your boss to get you fired?
Obviously in competition with
Obviously in competition with Lidl for the worst driver award. Lidl were very happy to continue using a transport contractor for deliveries after one of their drivers killed two cyclists (for which he was later jailed) and continued to be happy to use them up until the Traffic Commissioner put a stop to it by banning the contractor. The TC described the contractor as
“By far the worst case I have seen since I started as a Traffic Commissioner in 2007”
and
“Mr Fry has a calculated approach to road safety – it appears that the interests of profit supercede road safety.”
Yet Lidl claimed that the contractor had
“always been fully compliant with all Lidl Service levels and Contractual obligations.”
I agree with kevinmorice,
I agree with kevinmorice, that pass was perfectly acceptable. Plenty of room between the lorry’s rear wheel and the cyclist in the Hi-Viz. TBH I am more used to what the fictitious rider 3 abreast normally gets!
L.Willo wrote:
From cars yes, but lorries are different beasts. I have generally found hgv drivers to be better drivers than most, as they should be with the increased hazard they present.
I have to say, although it is
I have to say, although it is plenty close enough, and the lorry looks like it’s doing a fair speed, to me it doesn’t look horribly close; but the camera angle etc is not perfect, and I appreciate the suction / bow wave of (wet!) air caused by a vehicle that size going past at that speed would be bad.
I’m not sure if the lack of visible reaction from the riders is symptomatic of them being used to such close proximity passes as someone earlier said, or them having nerves of steel, but in my hometown, I reckon that would be the average distance given for overtaking a cyclist – perhaps I’m just used to really poor driving here! (there are a large number of people who don’t know how to use roundabouts properly for example).
We’ve all seen worse but,
We’ve all seen worse but, given the speed, that close pass was not only dangerous but completely unnecessary. I have written to Aldi (thanks for the details). I will not buy anything from Aldi in the future (not that we buy much from them anyway). I suggest others do the same.
Most roads are not intended
Most roads are not intended for cyclists and when I cycle I accept this and try to apply common sense. You are playing with death riding on a busy road two abrest. Lets face it most drivers do not ride bikes and to them cyclists are just a bally nuisance. Nothing can change that point of view. We should ride accordingly and to be safe, avoid riding on busy roads and walk on the pavement if part of your route takes you down a busy stretch . It’s just stupid to adopt the attitude ‘well it’s my right to cycle on any road so I’m going to’. Ask yourself why cyclists are banned from cycling on motorways – in many ways it’s more dangerous on ordinary main roads. A main road is for motor traffic to get from A to B fast – not for going tortoise speed dodging in and out of cyclsts. You can say motorists are inconsiderate if you like but until everyone rides a bike then it’s best to be sensible and safe.
Dear cycling friends from the
Dear cycling friends from the “mother country” one thinks you have grossly overreacted to what is a non issue with this truck. Plenty of room was left, there was not even a wobble from the air wave always a sign of closeness and clealry the cyclist did not even blink.
Fair dinkum react to issue that are worth reacting to.
It’s getting a bit Monty
It’s getting a bit Monty Python…
‘where I ride, I get decapitated by at least 3 trucks before I’ve even clipped in, and you don’t hear me moaning.’
Thanks for sharing. More, please.
Time for a special lane for
Time for a special lane for lorry loads…..a train track.
Jacq Iveski wrote:
Isn’t that why we invested so much money as a country in the rail network. And canals. Don’t forget, there’s an eco way of moving heavy loads which we created hundreds of years ago.
I am a cyclist and I’ll
I am a cyclist and I’ll probably gets dogs abuse for this, the two riders should also take responsibility as per Rule 66 of the highway code, it is a busy road (I live locally), it was narrowing in addition it was wet and poor visibility therefore the riders should have been riding single file. The truck is close but the riders could have applied a little more common sense on a road leading to an Aldi Distrbution Centre where this type of vehicle is the rule rather than the exception. I do not condone the drivers actions and get buzzed regularyly how ever as cyclists we have to do as much as possible to keep ourselves safe. You may guess im not a fan of two abreast on busy roads.
lanternrouge1965 wrote:
Riding single file on a busy road is no safer that two abreast. If anything, it’s more dangerous.
The speed and the gap to the lorry is solely responsibility of the driver piloting 30 tonnes of speeding metal. Based on this video, I’d say he was not driving in a safe or considerate manner. The cyclists were in a compact group and IMHO were doing nothing wrong and everything right.
I presume that the transport
I presume that the transport company’s representative was watching a completely different video to me.
The first lorry to overtake the cyclists gave them an entire lanes width. Despite the fact that the road on the cyclists side was wide the first lorry was straddling the white line during his overtake, which is giving the cylists plenty of room.
The second lorry made no attempt to give the cyclists any room, and from the video their drivers side wheel was on the white lines in the centre of the road despite the fact that the road was beginning to narrow. Also, the lorry has completed the overtake of the cyclsits by 31 seconds, yet it is 36/37 seconds on the video before there is any sign of an oncoming vehicle on the opposite carriageway, which meant they could have used the entire other carriageway to complete the overtake thereby giving the cyclists the room that they deserved.
Time to stick my head up
Time to stick my head up again and be shot, but here goes. Not trolling deliberately but this seems a little one sided.
Not many HGV drivers on here it seems, and would welcome their view. They are now being liable for cyclist undercutting them at the lights, before a left turn. They also now have to stop their truck on an A road to give a full lane width space to two riders abreast. 44 tonnes takes quite a lot of stopping and starting, but thats okay, because we can carry on our chat.
“Those who know their rights but not their responsibilities”, springs to mind.
Windydog wrote:
Well, you’re doing a cracking job unintentionally.
All they have to do is avoid driving into more vulnerable road users who are abiding by the highway code, and abide by the highway code themselves.
If that’s too much to ask for some people they should probably stop driving professionally, or at all.
Windydog wrote:
Are you sure you’re not deliberately trolling as it seems like it to me.
Firstly, I fail to see how HGV drivers are “liable” for cyclists passing them on the left. They are liable for not turning left and smashing into a cyclist, but that is to be expected. For clarification, see Highway Code rule 151 (In slow-moving traffic. You should… be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side). Also relevant is rule 182 (Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view).
Secondly, I fail to see why a truck would need to stop just because there are 2 cyclists abreast. They may need to slow down so that they can overtake when it is safe to do so, but that applies to every vehicle regardless of their weight (presumably you are suggesting that 44 tonne vehicles don’t have control over their speed or something).
Thirdly, what responsibilities are you referring to? Maybe you mean rule 66 (You should… never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends) which is a recommendation (“should” rather than “must”). However, from the video, the road isn’t narrow and they weren’t going round a bend. “Busy” is open to interpretation, but I would posit that other vehicles weren’t being held up when trying to overtake the cyclists and thus the road wasn’t particularly busy. As far as I could see, the other vehicles had no problem overtaking safely so I fail to see why you’re trying to excuse bad roadmanship on the part of the Aldi lorry.
There are plenty of excellent HGV drivers who are very considerate drivers, so I don’t think it is fair to consider them in the same group as the asshole Aldi driver (likewise, there are good and bad motorists, cyclists, horse riders etc).
Windydog wrote:
Yes, that concept springs to mind to me too – a lorry driver clearly more worried about his supposed (and non-existant) right not to have to press the pedals in his cab than his responsibility not to kill anyone with his 44 tonne lethal piece of machinery. What you’re actually saying is that lorry drivers have a right not to be delayed for a few seconds and that cyclists have a responsibility to get out of their way. Neither is true. Even if there was a right to drive as fast as you want whenever you want, a resaonable person would surely say that the right to life is more important. The law rightly resists the “might makes right” mentality that you clearly have.
And no, there is no need to stop to perform a safe overtake.
You are clearly trolling whether you intend to or not.
Overtaking these riders riding two abreast safely is no more difficult or dangerous than overtaking single file riders safely. Either way it should involve moving to the opposite side of the road – see illustration here for what overtaking is meant to look like:
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/559afd05e5274a155c00001f/the-highway-code-rule-163.jpg
In fact the same number of riders riding single file are harder to overtake because they are strung out twice as far along the road.
Barking stuff. I certainly
I removed the post, because the herd reaction got me flustered and damn right, it got me emotive. Now I’m being called a liar.
I will not defend any of this here, behind the safety of a keyboard or place my wife’s name in the public domain. She thought she was in the right and resultantly safer to follow the guidance in the highway code, she blames herself for that and the loss of her horse, not me.
Peace out. You go your way.
Windydog wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.
When you fail to argue logically, a call to emotion is usually the next step. Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Sorry to hear about your “loved one” being hospitalised, but I’m somewhat incredulous that your previous post about “responsibility” seems to be victim blaming your “loved one”.
I don’t believe you.
Windydog wrote:
Apologies for any distress I may have caused. At the end of the day, we all just want to have the freedom to use the roads safely.
Windydog wrote:
I get your point, I think: having the rights in theory might equate to celebrating them and ending up dead in practice. But if the roads are unsafe, which position is more likely to result in them becoming safer? Meekly accepting our lot, or making a bit of noise about not being happy with the status quo?
Peter, no dramas, I could be
Peter, no dramas, I could be a serial killer behind bars for all this forum knows. (I’m not btw, the event is very real too) and no offence taken. I just wouldn’t wish it on anyone else.
Yep, Davel, that was my point, but you wordsmith’d it perhaps more elegantly.
The status quo sucks right now, but the more people being dragged out of a metal box onto a bike the better and that would be an agenda perhaps best served through positive news and unashamed spin doctoring. With numbers, we get representation either through forward minded councils, or in parliament. Car numbers are going up, we could lose the quota battle and be extinguished.
I’m suggesting that a negative agenda including getting people sacked (deserving Merton councillers aside) won’t necessarily help with this. A sacked Aldi driver with a family will have plenty of sympathy at the bar, with a population audience far greater than this thread.
Windydog – I’m with Davel on
Windydog – I’m with Davel on this. I think standing up (or should that be sitting on a saddle?) for our rights is better than clinging to the gutters and being thankful for it. You do have a point, though – there are some battles better avoided and some roads are better riden with caution rather than bravado.
I think we (cyclists as a group) should welcome the use of cameras/video and name and shame poor driving to prompt a re-think amongst the bad drivers. I’d rather have motorists being careful around bikes even if it’s only because they’re scared of being youtubed. If they resent me because of that, then so be it.
(Personally, I’m just holding out for our benign robotic self-driving car overlords to take over).
But, and this is my self
But, and this is my self confessed narrow view, the single biggest change in public opinion and takeup of late, was positive news from Olympics, TDF etc that dragged people onto bikes. I sadly feel an ebb (with no statistical evidence) happening. No one *outside of this forum* wants to be outraged. *edit*
I spoke to Aldi customer
I spoke to Aldi customer services today. They said that apparently it was not Boardman’s mother, and also it was not one of their drivers. So that’s ok then. Right….
I mentioned that we might not care whether it was somebody employed directly by them, or by a sub contracter. I also asked if it’s Ok for their drivers to be a menace to cyclists so long as they are not famous (or family of famous people).
These seemed to be new lines of thought for Aldi customer services. I think the video needs to be shared much more, and they need to receive a lot more e-mails and phone calls, to make sure the message gets through.