Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist accuses police of ignoring close pass video footage

Simon Keen sent footage of an extremely close pass but claims Hertfordshire Police won't act unless someone is hurt...

A cyclist has accused police of failing to act after a driver passed him so close he claims he was almost knocked off his bike.

Simon Keen approached road.cc with two videos of drivers coming dangerously close to him on one commute in September, in Batford, Harpenden.

He alleges when he sent the footage to Hertfordshire Police with his concerns, they told him they won’t prosecute or educate drivers unless someone is injured. Road.cc has contacted Hertfordshire police to confirm or deny this, but the approach would be in stark contrast with a recent West Midlands Police initiative to prosecute close passing drivers in an innovative close pass initiative.

Cycling UK lauds West Midlands Police’s new close-pass initiative

Keen described the second of two close passes a “very close shave, with a car overtaking me at night approaching a blind bend and almost hitting me and an oncoming car.”

He says: “Having reported this to Hertfordshire police, which in itself was a challenge, I have been told that neither Herts police nor Bedfordshire police (where I live) will prosecute or even have a word with drivers.

“They will not consider videos as providing any evidence and will only get involved if someone is hurt,” he said.

Keen’s two close passes can be seen in the following videos. In the first instance a driver pulls out of a side road as Keen passes, which he says felt like the driver was driving directly at him. In the second incident, a different driver attempted to overtake Keen on a blind bend, with oncoming vehicles.

Warning: video below contains swearing.

He describes the incident in an email to police, seen by road.cc.

He said: “The driver had had time to overtake me when the road was clear and also made no attempt to pass me with any clearance. This incident was far worse as he only just missed me.”

Keen says it is unlikely the two drivers didn’t see him, as his bike had bright lights front and rear, as well as a Fly6 with flashing red light on the rear, he was wearing a white cycling jersey and reflective backpack, with reflective paint on his tyres and saddle bag.

Police in Camden, North London, are undertaking a similar decoy close pass initiative as West Midlands, and today sent a driver for prosecution for passing within six inches of one of their officers.

Over the summer Hertfordshire police did a crackdown on pavement cycling in Baldock and Letchworth. 

Sergeant Alan Clarke, of the Letchworth and Baldock safer neighbourhood team, said: "We have had increasing reports of people, predominantly adults and teenagers, cycling on pavements."

"Cycling on pavements is dangerous, anti-social and unpopular with cyclists who obey the rules of the road - as well as pedestrians who have to negotiate bikes using the pavement."

"This kind of behaviour is unacceptable, frequently causes collisions and can be very intimidating for people trying to use the footpath."

It is unclear whether anyone had been injured by pavement cycling.

We will update the article when we hear from Hertfordshire Police.

Add new comment

85 comments

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to Applecart | 7 years ago
1 like
Applecart wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

4 paragraphs of bollocks.  Good work.

Nice critical analytical skills you've got there. I therefore take it you believe the opposite, which seems bizarre on a cycling website.

Have you watched the end of the video yet?

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to davel | 7 years ago
1 like
davel wrote:
Applecart wrote:

Blimey, I've stirred up a hornet's nest here! If your life revolves around  raging at people with cameras on your helmets for not giving you space and watching videos of other people doing that on the internet, you're a nob. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt and you'll enjoy cycling, as well as your life a lot more.

As for people rubbishing what I've said, the two key issues are:
1. visibility (drivers don't see you)
2. speed (drivers under-estimate cyclists' speed, and cyclists over-estimate drivers')

Both points are fully backed-up by research. If you keep these in mind you'll be a hell of a lot safer. I'm not saying drivers don't need education too, but you need to also control your behaviour and stop raging at people as it makes us all look like sad twats. Enjoy cycling folks and stay safe, please.

Are you saying that cyclists' behaviour is a significant factor in cyclist KSIs? - If you are, you're wrong. No research will back that up. Look up causes of cyclist KSIs - govt and RoSPA figures. - If you're not, then you must accept that you're arguing a trivial point - that cyclist behaviour is largely irrelevant to the type of driver behaviour that really matters (ie that which leads to cyclist KSIs).

 

I think there is a vaild point here to be fair... cycling behavious is not the cause in the majority of cyclist KSI's, the fault sits with the driver in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, cycling behavious can and does affect the exposure / vulnerability of cyclists to poor standards of driving. 

And actually... ranting and raving gets you no where... it doesn't make the driver go... "oh woops, I think I got it wrong there, that cyclist is right, I'll take greater care next time"

It makes them think... "cyclists... dicks"

The right answer is providing controlled feedback when possible... not saying thats what I do... that I don't pull out the obsenities from time to time, but really, the only chance of positive change, is positive, constructive discussion. 

 

 

 

Avatar
Disappearinghead replied to Bikebikebike | 7 years ago
1 like
Bikebikebike wrote:
drosco wrote:

Fine, people can do what they want, but it does create a them and us, which impacts on all cyclists, not only those who choose to use cameras.

 

Personally, if I was so obsessed with getting killed riding a bike everyday that I felt the need to wear a camera to record my demise, I probably would be riding at all. 

Cycling community wanker.

I was knocked off my bike bike twice last year by two drivers. One turned right and drove into me as I was passing a junction, the other pulled out of a left hand junction and knocked me across the road into oncoming traffic. I had first one then the other collar bone broken. The response from both South Wales and West Mercia police was tough tits no action against the drivers is necessary.

So yes I now have a Fly 6 cam and a helmet cam. If a driver can see he's being recorded he might, just might, watch his own behaviour.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to drosco | 7 years ago
0 likes
drosco wrote:

How dare I have an opion that isn't the same as yours!

(insert expletive here)

 

Cretins. 

I don't even know what an "opion" is. (Some kind of onion?)

I just don't see how using a camera (or two) is antagonising car drivers. You may be confusing cause and effect here - maybe the increase in driver aggression is causing more cyclists to consider getting cameras to provide evidence in case of a collision. That's what prompted my purchase of Fly6 and Fly12 cameras.

Just pointing a camera at a public road should not be a bone of contention. If you're driving along normally, then what's the problem? It's only the reckless and feckless drivers that should have any concern that they're being filmed and being on a public road means that there's no expectation of privacy (despite all those car drivers who pick their noses thinking that no-one's watching).

In the reverse case, I don't think cyclists object to car dash-cams and protest that the motorists are making it a "them-and-us" scenario. Likewise, motorcyclists have been using video cameras for a while and I don't think people consider them to be divisive.

The simple truth is that a camera shows objectively (albeit from a single view-point) what was happening and is useful if there's any need to provide evidence. Otherwise, you just have an argument from different onions.

 

Avatar
davel replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 7 years ago
1 like
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
davel wrote:
Applecart wrote:

Blimey, I've stirred up a hornet's nest here! If your life revolves around  raging at people with cameras on your helmets for not giving you space and watching videos of other people doing that on the internet, you're a nob. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt and you'll enjoy cycling, as well as your life a lot more.

As for people rubbishing what I've said, the two key issues are:
1. visibility (drivers don't see you)
2. speed (drivers under-estimate cyclists' speed, and cyclists over-estimate drivers')

Both points are fully backed-up by research. If you keep these in mind you'll be a hell of a lot safer. I'm not saying drivers don't need education too, but you need to also control your behaviour and stop raging at people as it makes us all look like sad twats. Enjoy cycling folks and stay safe, please.

Are you saying that cyclists' behaviour is a significant factor in cyclist KSIs? - If you are, you're wrong. No research will back that up. Look up causes of cyclist KSIs - govt and RoSPA figures. - If you're not, then you must accept that you're arguing a trivial point - that cyclist behaviour is largely irrelevant to the type of driver behaviour that really matters (ie that which leads to cyclist KSIs).

 

I think there is a vaild point here to be fair... cycling behavious is not the cause in the majority of cyclist KSI's, the fault sits with the driver in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, cycling behavious can and does affect the exposure / vulnerability of cyclists to poor standards of driving. 

And actually... ranting and raving gets you no where... it doesn't make the driver go... "oh woops, I think I got it wrong there, that cyclist is right, I'll take greater care next time"

It makes them think... "cyclists... dicks"

The right answer is providing controlled feedback when possible... not saying thats what I do... that I don't pull out the obsenities from time to time, but really, the only chance of positive change, is positive, constructive discussion. 

 

 

 

As epitomised by Chris Boardman - totally agree we need that. We're not in the promised land yet, though, are we? 'Drivers' and authorities aren't showing that many signs of listening, are they?

In the meantime, some progress on prosecution (W Mids police) and fear of being filmed or abused by gobby/punchy cyclists might not be a bad thing.

Avatar
Applecart replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:
Applecart wrote:

Blimey, I've stirred up a hornet's nest here! If your life revolves around  raging at people with cameras on your helmets for not giving you space and watching videos of other people doing that on the internet, you're a nob. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt and you'll enjoy cycling, as well as your life a lot more.

As for people rubbishing what I've said, the two key issues are:
1. visibility (drivers don't see you)
2. speed (drivers under-estimate cyclists' speed, and cyclists over-estimate drivers')

Both points are fully backed-up by research. If you keep these in mind you'll be a hell of a lot safer. I'm not saying drivers don't need education too, but you need to also control your behaviour and stop raging at people as it makes us all look like sad twats. Enjoy cycling folks and stay safe, please.

Are you saying that cyclists' behaviour is a significant factor in cyclist KSIs? - If you are, you're wrong. No research will back that up. Look up causes of cyclist KSIs - govt and RoSPA figures. - If you're not, then you must accept that you're arguing a trivial point - that cyclist behaviour is largely irrelevant to the type of driver behaviour that really matters (ie that which leads to cyclist KSIs).

 

Yes, I'm saying cyclists' behaviour is as much a factor. I've looked at the stats and the main cause is "didn't look properly" and it's about 57-43 drivers vs cyclists fault at junctions this backs up my assertion of "I didn't see him", but also that cyclists can be equally careless.

Looking at a Guardian article from 15.12.2009, it says that collisions are attributed solely to the driver 60-75% of the time. My point therefore is, as it is so incredibly risky sharing the road with cars, don't take any kind of risk as a cyclist. This means: never assume somebody has seen you, assessed your speed correctly, or will give you space as the potential cost of this is your life. If you bear that in mind you have a lot less to get angry about..

Avatar
Applecart replied to Disappearinghead | 7 years ago
0 likes
Disappearinghead wrote:
Bikebikebike wrote:
drosco wrote:

Fine, people can do what they want, but it does create a them and us, which impacts on all cyclists, not only those who choose to use cameras.

 

Personally, if I was so obsessed with getting killed riding a bike everyday that I felt the need to wear a camera to record my demise, I probably would be riding at all. 

Cycling community wanker.

I was knocked off my bike bike twice last year by two drivers. One turned right and drove into me as I was passing a junction, the other pulled out of a left hand junction and knocked me across the road into oncoming traffic. I had first one then the other collar bone broken. The response from both South Wales and West Mercia police was tough tits no action against the drivers is necessary.

So yes I now have a Fly 6 cam and a helmet cam. If a driver can see he's being recorded he might, just might, watch his own behaviour.

 

I'm really sorry that happened to you. I don't however think that having a camera will make someone less likely to hit you because if they have time to clock you with a camera, they certainly have time to not drive into you and potentially commit manslaughter. If it makes you feel safer though so be it. I would always presume that they haven't seen me though.

Avatar
Applecart replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 7 years ago
0 likes
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
davel wrote:
Applecart wrote:

Blimey, I've stirred up a hornet's nest here! If your life revolves around  raging at people with cameras on your helmets for not giving you space and watching videos of other people doing that on the internet, you're a nob. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt and you'll enjoy cycling, as well as your life a lot more.

As for people rubbishing what I've said, the two key issues are:
1. visibility (drivers don't see you)
2. speed (drivers under-estimate cyclists' speed, and cyclists over-estimate drivers')

Both points are fully backed-up by research. If you keep these in mind you'll be a hell of a lot safer. I'm not saying drivers don't need education too, but you need to also control your behaviour and stop raging at people as it makes us all look like sad twats. Enjoy cycling folks and stay safe, please.

Are you saying that cyclists' behaviour is a significant factor in cyclist KSIs? - If you are, you're wrong. No research will back that up. Look up causes of cyclist KSIs - govt and RoSPA figures. - If you're not, then you must accept that you're arguing a trivial point - that cyclist behaviour is largely irrelevant to the type of driver behaviour that really matters (ie that which leads to cyclist KSIs).

 

I think there is a vaild point here to be fair... cycling behavious is not the cause in the majority of cyclist KSI's, the fault sits with the driver in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, cycling behavious can and does affect the exposure / vulnerability of cyclists to poor standards of driving. 

And actually... ranting and raving gets you no where... it doesn't make the driver go... "oh woops, I think I got it wrong there, that cyclist is right, I'll take greater care next time"

It makes them think... "cyclists... dicks"

The right answer is providing controlled feedback when possible... not saying thats what I do... that I don't pull out the obsenities from time to time, but really, the only chance of positive change, is positive, constructive discussion. 

Yes, you got it. I would go further and say that, as drivers are usually at fault we need to be even more careful not to antagonise people and to pre-empt accidents by following the general rule that: everybody is blind to cyclists and cannot judge speed. You'll probably live longer.

At least someone gets what I'm saying: ie. steaming along in the middle of the road with a camera on your head shouting at drivers and making signs is not going to help anyone, it just creates bad feeling.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to Applecart | 7 years ago
0 likes
Applecart wrote:

Yes, I'm saying cyclists' behaviour is as much a factor. I've looked at the stats and the main cause is "didn't look properly" and it's about 57-43 drivers vs cyclists fault at junctions this backs up my assertion of "I didn't see him", but also that cyclists can be equally careless.

Looking at a Guardian article from 15.12.2009, it says that collisions are attributed solely to the driver 60-75% of the time. My point therefore is, as it is so incredibly risky sharing the road with cars, don't take any kind of risk as a cyclist. This means: never assume somebody has seen you, assessed your speed correctly, or will give you space as the potential cost of this is your life. If you bear that in mind you have a lot less to get angry about..

This is exactly the sort of nonsense argument we used to have with L.Willo.  Yes, I could stop every time I'm not certain someone has seen me, but I've got places to be.  I can't take 2 hours to get to work because I'm stopping every time I see another car.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to Applecart | 7 years ago
1 like
Applecart wrote:

as drivers are usually at fault we need to be even more careful not to antagonise people

"She provoked him, your honour.  She deserved it.  If she hadn't antagonised him, it would never have happened."

Avatar
john latimer | 7 years ago
0 likes

Police Scotland can't even be arsed doing anything even when someone is badly injured,they would of likely done cyclist for wasting police time

Avatar
SiRush replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
0 likes

Cycling on the pavement IS NOT ILLEGAL!

You may use the pavement if you do it
- out of fear of traffic
- with respect of pavement users.

Avatar
SiRush replied to Applecart | 7 years ago
1 like
Applecart wrote:

I hope they don't prosecute because:
1. it wasn't closer than the mandatory distance.
2. it will hopefully discourage utter twats like this who go around with cameras shouting at motorists and giving all the rest of us a bad name.

I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist. This is because I do my damnedest to stay close to the kerb, to make myself visible, to not cycle two-abreast, to always presume that a car has not seen me and will not assess my speed correctly.

Please, get a life and ride safely. The guy should have slowed down when he saw the van turning instead of steaming through. Yes, the driver made an error of judgement. You however are a 12-stone piece of meat on a 9kg frame, versus a couple of thousand kilos of van. Regardless of what situation you are in, you are not a car and you do not have right of way due to basic physics and common sense. Back off.

Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!

Seriously? You "do your damdest to stay close to the kerb"?

Do that and you can get knocked off.

Most days on my commute I have drivers try to squeeze past me when there's a traffic calming measure than means the road is too narrow for a bike and a car.

Not so long ago a typical incompetent tried to squeeze past, realised his idiot mistake at the last minute, and hit the kerb on the central reservation and blew his tyre and wrecked his wheel rim.

Last year another fool did the same and hit me with his wing mirror at seventy.

That hurt.

Luckily I had a witness so he got done for dangerous driving. Had the witness not been there a camera would have done the trick.

Listen : I've been knocked off my bike 5 times over the years, mostly by idiots pulling out of junctions into me, and they got zero punishment as its my word against theirs.

Too many drivers get away with threatening people's lives, and just because you've been damned lucky, doesn't mean everyone else should just roll over and accept this.

Sheesh.

Avatar
SiRush replied to Applecart | 7 years ago
1 like
Applecart wrote:

What a heap of confused drivel. 1. There is no 'mandatory distance', but if there were, this would be closer than it. 2. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please tell me what a right turning van has to do with anything. The issue was simply a standard impatient numpty pushing past with no space. 3. Your "advice" to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving. 4. "Stay safe" is dandy, but quite what you think the cyclist could have done to avoid this idiot driving is beyond me. Other than riding in primary, which you would say is wrong because it upsets the almighty drivers. 5. Are you, in fact, L Willo returned from the grave?[/quote]

Thanks for at least bothering to state your position!

I do agree about the van, he was in the wrong. However:

1. if you remember that drivers underestimate cyclists' speed, you can pre-empt most behaviour and avoid getting killed. This is generally held to be desirable.
2. Staying left, in my experience, is appreciated by drivers as they can pass safely without the stress of thinking they're going to knock you off. It's personal, and it's what works for me. Likewise, two-abreast cycling irritates drivers enormously, so I don't do it. This is my personal opinion.
3. No idea who L Willo is. Staying safe, however falls into the above two points.[/quote]

Riding two abreast is not only legal, it's encouraged by the highway code.

Most of us cyclists do stay left, but when a section is two narrow for an overtake it's safer to "take the primary", i. e. move out, to stop a dangerous driver from passing.

Again the highway code recommends this behaviour.

Avatar
SiRush replied to Applecart | 7 years ago
1 like
Applecart wrote:

I could continue!

In accidents, what is the number one reason drivers give? Answer: "I didn't see him." Remember that if you are cycling, and always, always presume that they haven't seen your skinny ass.

Secondly if they have seen you, the next misjudgement is to under-estimate the cyclist's speed. Case in point here, the van driver did think this guy would be so fast and pulled out. It's so bloody simple! Wake up!!! Cyclists need education too, clearly ffss

Troll alert.

I mean you can't be so daft as to claim that the cyclist was "too fast" therefore it wasn't the fault of the driver.

Seriously?

Do I need to spell it out.

If a driver can't estimate the speed of a fellow road user then they should not have a licence.

A license is a privilege, not a right.

Avatar
Exup | 7 years ago
1 like

PSNI also did not do anything when given video footage of a driver who went straight on in a right turn only lane and skimmed me by no more than a couple of inches. 

Apart from being hit, this is my closest call. 

The only solution I have found in Belfast city traffic is to ride in the middle of the lane and take control to stop forced overtakes by dickheads. Most of the time, I move faster than the cars, so they hold me up.

The only Police Force that seem to be stepping up to the mark and (reportedly) doing their duty to protect the vulnerable are the West Midlands, with their close pass overtaking policy. See how this progresses, but good on them.

Avatar
Applecart replied to robertoegg | 7 years ago
0 likes
robertoegg wrote:
Applecart wrote:

I hope they don't prosecute because:
1. it wasn't closer than the mandatory distance.
2. it will hopefully discourage utter twats like this who go around with cameras shouting at motorists and giving all the rest of us a bad name.

I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist. This is because I do my damnedest to stay close to the kerb, to make myself visible, to not cycle two-abreast, to always presume that a car has not seen me and will not assess my speed correctly.

Please, get a life and ride safely. The guy should have slowed down when he saw the van turning instead of steaming through. Yes, the driver made an error of judgement. You however are a 12-stone piece of meat on a 9kg frame, versus a couple of thousand kilos of van. Regardless of what situation you are in, you are not a car and you do not have right of way due to basic physics and common sense. Back off.

Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!

 

you didn't watch to the end did you?

Yes I did. The car was close. However, it was a narrow road, there was oncoming traffic, and the cyclist was too far out from the verge. If he was riding like a reasonably intelligent person the car could slip by just fine. I've done plenty of night riding and I know it's a hairy experience, you need to be tucked right in to the edge. Unsurprisingly, I've not had any problems of this sort.

Secondly, the cyclist is clearly un utter tool. Just listen to his voice, shouting "wanker" and "tosser" at everyone with his f***ing camera on his head in the middle of the road, thinking he has all the visibility and physical properties of a motor vehicle. I think he shouldn't be riding quite frankly.

Avatar
Applecart replied to vonhelmet | 7 years ago
0 likes

[/quote]

This is exactly the sort of nonsense argument we used to have with L.Willo.  Yes, I could stop every time I'm not certain someone has seen me, but I've got places to be.  I can't take 2 hours to get to work because I'm stopping every time I see another car.

[/quote]

I'm not talking about stopping. My commute right now is 5k on a cycle path so I'm lucky, however I used to cycle 25 miles Weston-Super-Mare to Bristol, or 11 miles Clevedon to Bristol for work regularly on A, B and country roads and never had any problems. You just have to be careful around junctions - always presume they haven't seen you. That either means gunning it so you're past the cars before they can decide to turn, or feathering the brakes well in advance so you never put yourself inbetween a car and a left turn. This helps you to not die, which is good.

Avatar
Applecart replied to kraut | 7 years ago
0 likes
kraut wrote:
Applecart wrote:

I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist.

One presumes that when you're not cycling you're basejumping, wingsuit flying and climbing skyscrapers without a harness, because you must have nerves of steel.

Or you're talking bollocks (Perhaps you drive in Harpenden?)

 

Applecart wrote:

Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!

I'm genuinely all for giving equal opportunities to the less abled, but I draw the line at blind people driving. Even Keith Peates would struggle to justify that second overtake.

 

 

People have irritated me, yes. However the vast majority of the population do not have the psychological problems that result in road rage. People with road rage are a small but obviously very vocal minority. I lot of cyclists with road rage seem to have cameras strapped to their heads and spend an inordinate amount of time and energy recording themselves and others and putting it on the internet. I'm generally too busy riding my bike quite frankly.

OK I did raise my voice the other day when a young lady was chatting on her phone and missed me crossing.  I had to brake hard, but I was ready to do so as I presumed she hadn't seen me. She was clearly in the wrong, but my rule still applies: always presume that drivers haven't seen you.

The trick to being a good driver, or cyclist for that matter, is pre-empting other people's behaviour. That is the key to ah - ah - ah - ah - staying alive.

Avatar
Applecart replied to vonhelmet | 7 years ago
0 likes
vonhelmet wrote:

Have you watched the end of the video yet?

[/quote]

Yes. The car was too close. The cyclist was however too far out from the verge. If I was in that situation at night, I would be several inches away from being in the bushes as it's f***ing dangerous riding on narrow roads at night. It's almost an extreme sport. Cycling several feet out into the lane might make this guy's d*ck shrink a bit less from the sheer terror of it, however the effect is to make it more dangerous for all involved - as you can see in the video.

Avatar
bernithebiker | 7 years ago
4 likes

Applecart, sorry, but you are completely wrong.

 

I have been cycling for over 30 years; I've done and ridden just about everything, including 12 years in London, some of it as a cycle and motorcycle courier.

I am a cycle guide with my own tour company. 

What you are advocating is, in my opinion, dangerous and incorrect.

What has saved me from accidents is defensive riding, where you assert yourself and take a primary position on the road. This does not mean obstructing cars, but making them aware that you are there and have a right to be there.

 

Riding tight to the kerb is asking for trouble. You have nowhere to go if there's a super close pass. I always leave a margin for safety.

Yes, assume drivers haven't seen you, but when they do pull out on you, don't expect me to apologise and send them flowers. THEY are the ones in a 1.5 tonne hunk of metal that can kill you. THEY are the ones that should be extra careful not to kill a fellow human being. The level of driving skill and awareness is shockingly poor and needs to be brought to everyone's attention. If that's by multiple close pass / pull out videos then so be it.

Avatar
severs1966 replied to HalfWheeler | 7 years ago
0 likes
HalfWheeler wrote:

Re Herts Police. 

Now this is what you call irony;

https://twitter.com/HertsPolice/status/781524328923922432

 

Note that their logo is a car. That says it all, really.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
0 likes

I have had 5 interactions with Hertfordshire Police in 20 years of living and working in the county: A missing child, assisting at first response to an attempted suicide, first response at a serious road traffic accident, complaint about kids with airguns, and 1 complaint about behaviour of another road user. In each situation they have been proactive, professional and prompt to respond. With regard to my 2 complaints, they took them seriously and took what I consider to be the appropriate action.

I guess it depends on luck with who you get, what your expectations are and your own ability to treat professionals with respect. To accept their judgement as to how to deal with your complaint based on their training, experience, available resource and options as to appropriate course of action.

Seeing the way some people interact with authority, it's not really surprising that they get short shrift as time wasters.

Just remembered another. Friendly advice about road safety at the start of motorcycle season, free tea a safety video and chat with Police riders that was actually half an hour well spent.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to Applecart | 7 years ago
1 like
Applecart wrote:

Yes. The car was too close. The cyclist was however too far out from the verge. If I was in that situation at night, I would be several inches away from being in the bushes as it's f***ing dangerous riding on narrow roads at night. It's almost an extreme sport. Cycling several feet out into the lane might make this guy's d*ck shrink a bit less from the sheer terror of it, however the effect is to make it more dangerous for all involved - as you can see in the video.

[/quote]

Have you ever cycled before Applecart?  I'm guessing not.....well certainly not in the UK where we have somewhat less than perfect roads.

Cycling a few inches away from the bushes would result in you being in the bushes more often than not.  You need to cycle around 1 to 1.5m away from the verge for several reasons.  Firstly because of pothles, secondly to avoid road furniture such as gutters etc, and finally so that you are further into the driver's field of vision.

A few of your other priceless comments "It wasn't closer than the mandatory distance" - um ok there is no specified distance, other than rule 163 of the Highway Code which says give motorcyclists, cyclists and horses at least as much room as you would give a car.  Which he never.  Also rule 163 says you should "Overtake ONLY when it is safe to do so" and by cutting in when he did it was not safe to overtake. 

"Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you" - well if they can't see a cyclist with lights and reflective gear on in the dark they shouldn't be driving.  Would you use the same line if we were discussing pedestrians?

"1. if you remember that drivers underestimate cyclists' speed, you can pre-empt most behaviour and avoid getting killed. This is generally held to be desirable." - please let me know how you can pre-empt a driver coming from behind you, overtaking you into the face of oncoming traffic then squeezing you onto the verge?  From the time you see the car headlights to the time the car was cutting him up was a sum total of about 5 seconds.

"2. Staying left, in my experience, is appreciated by drivers as they can pass safely without the stress of thinking they're going to knock you off" - or as more often happens gives the driver the sense that you want them to overtake and as such they will try to do so before it is safe to do so.

"This means: never assume somebody has seen you, assessed your speed correctly, or will give you space as the potential cost of this is your life. If you bear that in mind you have a lot less to get angry about" - so you would recommend, as a 'cyclist' stopping on the approach to every hazard involving another car, just to be sure?

Most cyclists I know would react to a dangerous pass in some way shape or form.  It is the fight or flight response of the human body kicking in.  As for camera's creating a them and us culture, the culture was there long before camera's became popular, it's just now more and more of the incidents are being caught on film due to the number of camera's out there.

Please go and find some sensible arguments rather than the standard anti cycling rhetoric you are spouting

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
0 likes

They're a moton troll: they registered as 'Applecart' to post balls that they probably believe.

I do have some 'sympathy' for the invisibility of cyclists.*

However, the argument of 'stay well left/out of the way/ride defensively' put forward by the likes of Applecart, L.Willo and every other moton apologist who thinks, because they have a bike, that they can educate cyclists, collapses there (and many other areas, to be fair).

The argument that drivers can't see you calls for making yourself more visible and obvious, and do exactly the opposite of sheepishly hiding in the kerb, trying not to inconvenience our motorist masters. It's exactly the sort of contradictory bilge spouted by people like this who are twats first, drivers second, and cyclists when they've had their driving licence revoked.

* http://road.cc/content/news/81753-invisible-cyclists-eye-tracking-experi...

I've seen the RAF pilot quoted here and his arguments referred to a lot too...
http://road.cc/content/feature/159493-trend-spotting-should-we-all-be-us...

Pages

Latest Comments