The moment a ministerial car cut across the path of a cyclist as it turned into Parliament ahead of the Autumn Statement, was caught live on Sky News yesterday.
The black car was filmed from above crossing Parliament Square from the direction of Downing Street, before overtaking a cyclist, who was proceeding straight ahead, and turning left into Parliament’s Carriage Gates, forcing the cyclist to stop.
Some have speculated it was UK Chancellor Philip Hammond’s car driving him to Parliament to deliver yesterday’s Autumn Statement.
Bloody cyclists getting in the way of the #AutumnStatement pic.twitter.com/ufTHB9wyjV
— Martin Parks (@centrepartin) November 23, 2016
Martin Parks tweeted: “Philip Hammond’s car just nearly T-boned a cyclist live on @SkyNews #AutumnStatement”
M.J Fahy also tweeted: “On way to the commons, #PhilipHammond ‘s driver just turned left in front of a cyclist! Cyclist had to brake! The plebs really don’t matter.”
In yesterday’s Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond announced an extra £1.1bn investment in English local roads and retention of the ‘Cycle to Work’ scheme.
Hammond also confirmed the government’s contribution of £9m towards the cost of hosting the Cycling Road World Championships in Yorkshire in 2019, and £15m towards a legacy fund to pay for cycling infrastructure.
The news was welcomed by campaigners. Cycling UK’s CEO, Paul Tuohy, said: “Local roads are what everyone uses most regularly, but they are so often overlooked when it comes to public spending in place of big budget projects like motorways or A-roads.
“The chancellor’s pledge of £1.1bn to upgrade our local roads is a real opportunity for councils to tackle not just congestion, but also the health issues caused by dire air quality and physical inactivity.
“Local authorities must use these new local road funds to make Space for Cycling at the same time. This would be a cost efficient use of new money that will benefit all road users and the local community.”
The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group also welcomed the announcement for local roads funding and retention of the Cycle to Work scheme.
Ruth Cadbury MP (Lab, Brentford and Isleworth) said: “The large investment in local roads could see a revolution in cycling – I hope that towns and cities across England will get the segregated facilities that are needed to increase our cycling rates to European levels.”
Alex Chalk MP (Con, Cheltenham) added: “Retaining the Cycle to Work scheme is vital for encouraging commuting by bike. Millions of people have benefited from the scheme so far and I am delighted that this scheme will continue to support the growth in cycling.”
HM Treasury has been contacted for comment.
43 thoughts on “Ministerial car filmed left-hooking cyclist as it enters Parliament ahead of Autumn Statement”
It’s bad driving, and the car
It’s bad driving, and the car cut across the cyclist’s path.
It isn’t what I think of as a left hook, because the vehicle didn’t hit the cyclist. I assume the phrase ‘left hook’ comes from the name of the punch in boxing. I would say the headline is misleading.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
You actually have to get physically hit for it to count as a left hook?
Sorry, but that’s utter balls.
I don’t agree, you don’t have
I don’t agree, you don’t have to be hit by the other vehicle to have been left hooked by them. The only reason there wasn’t a collision was because the person on the bike slowed down, it’s still a left hook, happend to me on a few occasions, the highway code is clear, you don’t overtake another vehicle to turn left, you hang back and wait for them to pass the exit. It’s very bad driving from a professional driver.
TFR wrote:
In general I’d agree and it was unfortunate timing but I should point out that in this case the driver is professional in the sense of it’s his or her job to make sure the vehicle isn’t stationery at what constitutes a predictable pinch point.
I do think the lesson to be learned though is that they probably need an officer further up the road to stop the any traffic that might make the manoever difficult such as this cyclist.
Not a good watch though is it?
TFR wrote:
Thank goodness for this brave cyclist’s lightening reflexes. Joking aside, this happens to me cycling all the time and I don’t bat an eyelid. I’m not a vehicle and don’t expect to be treated as such; I’m a chunk of meat on a skinny bike frame trying to stay out of the way of cars in order to not die.
OMG! Attempted MURDER!!!1111!
OMG! Attempted MURDER!!!1111!!!
Evidence, if ever it was
Evidence, if ever it was needed that the government doesn’t give a damn about cyclists.
Grahamd wrote:
Quite a big leap there from a driver (and I admit I’m guessing here but I don’t imagine the driver is a member of the government) cutting up a cyclist to government giving a damn about cyclists.
psling wrote:
Perhaps. However when inappropriate driving of government vehicles is highlighted then a prompt statement should follow to show that they recognise it and are taking appropriate action. The government are quick enough to give statements about what they want you to hear. If they cannot give a timely statement to show that the drivers actions were unacceptable then by default they are condoning it, which shows they don’t give a damn IMHO.
Grahamd wrote:
So the chauffeur of a car represents the entire UK’s governmental policy towards cyclists? I fail to see any logic behind this statement.
Well it is self-important
Well it is self-important behaviour but nobody could honestly say dangerous.
Its a bit meh – the car did
Its a bit meh – the car did overtake the cyclist a fair way before the junction. The car had to slow as the junction cleared, and this ment the cyclist behind had to slow as well. Its unfortunate, but I cannot see anyone did anything wildly wrong, and I fail to see why we should get worked up about this one.
Broad daylight and the rider
Broad daylight and the rider is in hi-viz. Will be interesting to see how Daily Heil going to pin this on the cyclist! ;P
Can we just stop being angry
Can we just stop being angry victims?
harman_mogul wrote:
Hear hear! Cycling is inherently dangerous. I wish this small yet vocal minority of cyclists would stop demanding to be treated like motor vehicles and stay out of the bloody way of cars. I’ve never had any trouble as I’m sensible and all too aware of how vulnerable I am on a bike. If these fu©king whingers can’t hack it and it’s too dangerous, DON’T CYCLE and stop making the rest of us look like twats.
Applecart wrote:
Can we just stop being angry victims?
— Applecart Hear hear! Cycling is inherently dangerous. I wish this small yet vocal minority of cyclists would stop demanding to be treated like motor vehicles and stay out of the bloody way of cars. I’ve never had any trouble as I’m sensible and all too aware of how vulnerable I am on a bike. If these fu©king whingers can’t hack it and it’s too dangerous, DON’T CYCLE and stop making the rest of us look like twats.— harman_mogul
The only bike you’ve ever owned is still in your mum’s garage with stabilisers on. Dig it out, dust it off, and go ride up the inside of HGVs.
Applecart wrote:
Can we just stop being angry victims?
— Applecart Hear hear! Cycling is inherently dangerous. I wish this small yet vocal minority of cyclists would stop demanding to be treated like motor vehicles and stay out of the bloody way of cars. I’ve never had any trouble as I’m sensible and all too aware of how vulnerable I am on a bike. If these fu©king whingers can’t hack it and it’s too dangerous, DON’T CYCLE and stop making the rest of us look like twats.— harman_mogul
you’re proposing a victim mentality and a dangerous approach to cycling in traffic. The safest way to cycle in traffic is to behave as the vehicle you are, and to make sure that your road positioning puts you where drivers expect to see vehicles.
Applecart wrote:
Merely stating obvious falsehoods as if they are facts is the lowest form of trolling. Can you not be a little less obvious?
The security car behind doesn
The security car behind doesn’t stop moving, seems clear he really is going to cut up the cyclist.
pcb21 wrote:
Slows right down and pulls away from the rider until the lead car turns. Then, when rider appears to be stopped and has his foot on the ground, he turns to follow. This is a security car. Lead car, although reasonably far ahead of the rider when initiating the turn, should have waited – he wasn’t that far ahead – but not sure what a security detail is supposed to do differently here.
BLOODY TORIES. This would
BLOODY TORIES. This would never happen under Corbyn. Probably.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
corbyn would be on a chauffeur-driven tandem
Poor driving caught on camera
Poor driving caught on camera… it is what it is.
Potentially very dangerous, but fortunately the cyclist was attentive so actually a non-event.
The point however, and the reason that some are hot under the collar about this is because it was only due to the cyclists attentiveness that this was a non-event.
It shouldn’t really be just accepted… I’m not saying anyone should hang or anything, but it shouldn’t be justified as being OK, as its not OK.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Exactly this.
curious if there’s any
curious if there’s any relationship between Richard and Philip Hammond – other than them both being twats
Not great driving, I expect
Not great driving, I expect the driver was watching for the police to open the barriers.
I wonder how a driverless car’s sensors would cope with a bike coming up the inside.
WiznaeMe wrote:
Driverless would have no issue with this situation, it would wait for the obstruction to pass, like a human motorist should!
WiznaeMe wrote:
The bike wasn’t coming up the inside. The ministerial convoy overtook, and then turned left. What they should have done is been patient and wait for the cyclist to pass the entrance to the parliamentary carpark.
Like it or not the
Like it or not the Ministerial BMW has right of way, If you see these cars in person , they are running with Blue Flashing lights just behind where the indicators are usually located, and these are on permanentley and flash like indicators when the car makes any turn, they technically have the priority and right of way at all junctions and turns.
We used to do High risk escorts to and from the courts and in the past Neuclear convoy escorts, the vehicles used had the same light set up, ( the High risk escorts though usually had out riders front and back ) , but basically the whole convoy had priority at any junction or turn.
I remember distinctly some old boy in a toyota corolla being T Boned then surrounded by Armed Police when he failed to stop ( on a road where he would usually have priority ) for a High risk escort coming out of HMP whitemoor onto the 40 foot drain road at March.
If you watch the car moving on the TV you will see it has flashing blue lights in each corner!
Magic wrote:
Brilliant, thanks for settling this. I’m somewhat dreading the fact- and logic-resistant reactions though but I’m up for a laugh. Come on whingers, do your worst. I know – you can prove anything with ‘facts’ these days, right? 😀
Magic wrote:
Blue lights don’t give right of way. Priority maybe but not right of way.
atgni wrote:
Like it or not the Ministerial BMW has right of way, If you see these cars in person , they are running with Blue Flashing lights just behind where the indicators are usually located, and these are on permanentley and flash like indicators when the car makes any turn, they technically have the priority and right of way at all junctions and turns.
If you watch the car moving on the TV you will see it has flashing blue lights in each corner!
— atgni Blue lights don’t give right of way. Priority maybe but not right of way.— Magic
Yep sorry your right, Right of way is accorded dependent on the road markings and priorities.
However flashing blue lights gives them priority and its dependent on other road uses to see this and Yield. However a properly trained driver will not assume or take the right of Way if it puts others at risk, there is some arguement that this is what the driver did here.
You are having a laugh…
You are having a laugh… slightly poor driving and good awareness from a cyclist… well done but this is common sense, something you need on the road no matter what form of transport you are in… nothing more, nothing less. Really hate this kind of ‘oh look at me I’m a poor cyclist bullshit’ the cyclist was hardly cut up at speed. Can we please not stoop to this level of cycling journalistic shit. If they had all been speeding along it would be different, but both parties were slower than a bloody tortoise waking up from a six-month hibernation!
Bussing in the windowlickers
Bussing in the windowlickers from the Mail again, I see…
Sorry but in this case the
I remember going over a cross road when a car came along side to my right and then turned left into me. I was forced to turn left and join a motorway to avoid a collision. The driver ahould have been in the left hand lane as the lane they were in was for buses, cycles and taxi’s only. They then shouted at me for not signalling – when you are going straight on??
Sorry but in this case the driver was so far ahead of the cyclist that the van following was overtaking as well. Cyclist had plenty of time to observe the car and slow down.
Poor driving, for sure, but
Poor driving, for sure, but maybe the driver had the cyclist in his mirrors’ blind spot and didn’t check thoroughly as he had overtaken him quite a bit earlier and could have misjudged the bikes’ speed? To be fair, even as an experienced cyclist, when I’ve been driving I’ve made that mistake before. The cyclist didn’t really look to slow down to mitigate the circumstances himself either – not that he had to, but it might have been sensible maybe?
At a glance, “Quite” close, sort of “mutter a rude word under my breath and pedal off shaking my head, forgetting it 5 minutes later ” type of close rather than report the driver / shout at the driver / stop and wave arms about “you nearly killed me you idiot” type of close call. Not saying it’s right, but not extreme enough to get too hot under the collar from this angle.
However, although you can just make out the flashing blues (and as an earlier post said this gives you priority), I can’t make out any indicators going,….and he nearly mows a few peds down though, which does look a lot closer!
I would be sure that these
I would be sure that these gentlemen, and I’m quite sure they were gentlemen, would claim to be excellent drivers, highly trained met police drivers, some of the best of the best. And this is how they drive.
What with this and the mets refusal to consider a close pass initiative (as WMP ) to reduce intimidatory behavior, I reckon the met possesses an institutionally anti-cyclist culture.
Maybe bike lanes which
Maybe bike lanes which directs fast moving bicycles into a narrow channel on the inside are a dangerous idea?
The car that turned left was
The car that turned left was ahead of the cyclist at the intersection.
If it was already ahead of the cyclist
and indicating to go left,
surely it’s up to the cyclist to slow down?
I’m just asking because I’m genuinely confused about who has right of way
OmuGuy wrote:
If you overtake & turn left in front of the cyclist and cause the cyclist to come to a stop so he doesn’t hit the side of the car; it’s definitely a dick move and most likely a fail if you did it during your driving test.
Therefore the driver was at fault.
I’m sure they’d argue because of the terrorist risk they can’t be held up by cyclists but they wait for pedestrians to clear the gate, so if it is that big a deal radio ahead & ensure the entrance is clear & the gate ready to be opened, hold traffic on the approach & then sweep in.
Otherwise don’t be a dick & wait a couple of seconds behind the vulnerable road user.
OmuGuy wrote:
No one has right of way ever. You may have priority but not right of way.
It’s just a shame the cyclist
It’s just a shame the cyclist wasn’t Andrew Mitchell. The consequences might have provided entertainment for months.
Meh. I think that cyclists
Meh. I think that cyclists have a lot of legitimate beefs, but this isn’t one of them. Looks a bit like somebody is crying wolf.