Dashcam footage shows the moment when a cyclist was knocked off by a motorist who was attempting to squeeze past him on the A23 in Crawley, West Sussex. Police were reported to have been called to the scene but no further action was taken.
Richard Moule, who was driving behind, captured the footage on February 12 via his dash cam, just after the traffic lights opposite Goffs Park.
He told the Daily Mail that a nurse who had been in a car behind had tended to the cyclist: “He was bruised and battered but had no broken bones, his elbow hurt the most as that’s what took most of the damage. It was his clothing and bike came out worse off.”
The driver emerged from her car after about five minutes. Moule said that police and an ambulance were called but he believes that the matter is being dealt with only through insurance.
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Senior Road Safety and Legal Campaigns officer said: “Here we can clearly see someone driving so close behind a cyclist in traffic that the occupants of the following car comment upon it. Then we see an overtaking manoeuvre when there is nowhere near enough space to do so safely, completely ignoring the Highway Code rules. Subsequently the driver drifts towards the cyclist, who is clearly visible and cycling in a straight line at all times, causing the collision. That’s clearly driving which falls below a competent standard.”
Referring to West Midlands Police’s pioneering close-pass initiative, he added: “We’d heartily urge West Sussex police to invite West Midlands Traffic Police down to advise their officers on how to deal with collisions involving Vulnerable Road Users, as they’ve clearly got it very wrong in this case.”
Having reviewed the footage, West Sussex Police have now confirmed that they are investigating.
69 thoughts on “Video: Motorist hits cyclist while attempting to squeeze past on busy A-road”
It’s official. In the UK, hitting a cyclist while driving isn’t an offense.
If it were, that police officer would be hauled up in front of his superiors and suspended from duty until he showed some passing knowledge of the highway code and the proper procedures for charging a driver breaking half a dozen code rules causing damage and injury.
No doubt the haters will say
No doubt the haters will say the cyclist;
Drifted into the car
Was wearing lycra.
Didn’t pay road tax
Was not in a fluo jacket
Deserved it because other cyclists ride on the pavements and / or jump red lights
Should have known better
Should be banned from the road… for his own safety
You would have thought it was
You would have thought it was the clearest possible case of driving without due care and attention
Obviously the police officer
Obviously the police officer needs retraining in road safety.
Clearly if she’s hit the
Clearly if she’s hit the cyclist with a lump of metal causing him to fall off, while she was stood at the side of the road, she’d be charged with assault. Why should that be any different just because she was sat IN the lump of metal she hit him with ???
Boycott the economy until
Boycott the economy until this government gets its priorities sorted out.
Ramuz wrote:
Ramuz… You may have said that as a joke, but sadly I think you’ve got a point…. I think the politicians care more about the owners of RBS then they care about their own people. Interestingly I read an article that said if you wanted to prostest in the USA, the police would mostly ignore you on a street corner, but if you protested inside a shopping mall and prevented customers spending money, all hell would break loose.
Didn’t even leave her lane to
Didn’t even leave her lane to try to squeeze past, then moved over and hit him. She also took quite a while to apply the brakes. Presumably they checked the driver’s phone records? Any why wasn’t she rushing to help after doing that to another human being?!
Points on her licence at the very least. 6 month ban should educate her?
Hitting the road will be what did any damage there.
And, don’t say stuff like this unless you’re properly qualified:
“He was bruised and battered but had no broken bones”
I was told by a Police officer that I “may have cracked a rib”… 6 broken ribs (where they join the spine!), an obliterated kidney and damaged spleen, had I not gone to hospital I probably would have died that night. That experience taught me that I’ve broken many bones during my life and not realised at the time.
Maybe the cyclists didn’t
Maybe the cyclist didn’t want to press any charges!!!
I think the nurse probably very appologitic and the cyclist just want to claim from insurance and not wanting the driving to be arrested.
We weren’t there so we shoudln’t speculate or assume anything.
hsiaolc wrote:
Nurse wasn’t the driver, they just happened to be following and kindly stopped to tend to the cyclist.
hsiaolc wrote:
It doesn’t say the driver is a nurse, probably better you read the article again rather than assume things?
The vehicle has a faulty
The vehicle has a faulty nearside brakelight, an offence under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations. The police just don’t care about law breaking motorists. They would much rather target cyclists on the pavement who are there out of fear for their lives because…the police just don’t care about law reaking motorists. Ohh the heavy irony!
“Press charges” is not a
“Press charges” is not a thing in English law. Suspected law breakers are prosecuted normally, though not exclusively, by the Crown Prosecution Service. Bodies like the RSPCA and the Health And Safety Executive also prosecute and individuals can, if they wish, take out a private prosecution. But for the most part prosecutions are taken on by a statutory body if only for the good reason that victims of crime cannot then be pressed to stop the prosecution.
Alfiehound wrote:
when I was knocked off my bike about 3-4 years ago the police visited me at home to take my statement and subsequently offered me the choice of how to deal with the driver – ‘re-education’ or prosecution. I chose re-education as the driver was just careless, not in any way wicked, and so upset by what had happened that I didn’t think prosecution, points etc. would serve any useful purpose.
His insurance paid for the bike repairs (a made-to-measure Roberts, with expensive components, damage coming to about £1.5k), which presumably increased his premium a bit.
Driver has nowhere to go
Driver has nowhere to go after passing cyclist why overtake at all? You can see all the other cars with their brakes on pretty much at point of impact.
Needess close passes drive me mad. You can understand the temptation when stuck behind for a while with no gap in oncoming traffic to overtake properly, but people who put others lives in danger when there is no benefit to themselves are either out to hurt people or totally unaware of their surroundings they shoukdnt be allowed to drive in either case.
Not necessarily THIS driver
Not necessarily THIS driver but fun seeing the MOT history. Taking a car into an MOT with almost worn through tyres.
https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/
bendertherobot wrote:
Test date5 October 2011
Test ResultFail
Odometer reading26,118 miles
MOT test number7071 2867 1247
Reason(s) for failure
Offside Obligatory mirror missing (8.1.1)
Looks like they got used to not using it!
I think this has to be a case
I think this has to be a case for a private prosecution if the police don’t take any action.
Had something similar on my way to work this morning, managed to avoid getting hit by slamming on the brakes.
Until drivers lose their licenses for this type of driving they will keep on doing it.
Rich_cb wrote:
Put me down for a tenner. If the police and the CPS don’t think this is criminal, we’ve got to prove it ourselves. And no way is this me being unselfish and generous: when this happens to me, I want the driver prosecuted all the way.
Make our roads safe, and get these drivers off them.
I’m amazed that the cyclist
I’m amazed that the cyclist also shows a complete lack of awareness of the driver driving so close without any sort of reaction.
I would have been glaring back at her before she was anywhere close to my back wheel and my fist would have been out in front of her windscreen if she went on to get closer with a healthy slap on the screen, wing mirror or roof well before the right pedal made contact with the bodyside. Where was that guy’s mind just to keep riding as the car literally brushed past hime for nearly 2 metres before the pedal clipped the car body.
Likewise where was her mind with the bike well visible to the left .. I think I can see that one slightly – distracted to focus on merging with the traffic in the right hand lane – looking in the mirror rather than checking what was in front, and then checking the view with a right hand side bias as the coned off lane approached.
Using a mixed traffic carriageway requires all users to have a clear awareness of what is happening behind them as well as in front, and one of the reasoned that a 5000 cyclist survey over a decade ago landed on the need to ensure all cyclists gained the confidence and competence to perform the ‘lifesaver’ and look back regularly, and perhaps the key road safety campaign to run with cyclists – not only on the road, but as that crazy crash on the Lower Thames Street cycle superhighway showed even in a mass of just cyclists flowing along you need to know a faster rider is about to attempt a passing move – and if they are as stupid as the person who then rode head on into an Eastbound rider the person in front should be blocking or warning off the dangerous rider.
A V Lowe wrote:
Sounds a bit like victim-blaming.
In my experience, sticking your hand out over the bonnet doesn’t achieve anything, except having less control over the bike and maybe winding up the driver who then becomes more likely to hit you.
Maybe the rider is deaf and wasn’t expecting such an incompetent piece of driving?
It’s another “nobody died”
It’s another “nobody died” decision. On that note, nobody died in this:
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15105809.Drug_crazed_driver_high_on_MDMA_rammed_a_dozen_cars_in___33k_night_of__carnage_/?ref=ar
But the driver is being prosecuted, for many offences. Yep, damaged cars are worth more than damaged people 🙁
I had almost the exact same
I had almost the exact same thing happen to me last year. Eerily similar. Bike wrote off, elbow still bears the scarrs.
The police didn’t bother to turn up to the scene, I merely received a letter a few days later explaining that they were busy with higher priority incidents at the time. No further action to be taken as details had been exchanged and insurance would be handling the matter.
It would seem that it is standard procedure…
With my incident the driver commented he did not see me as the sun was in his eyes…eyebrow raising seeing as at the time, the sun was coming from behind…even the Paramedic laughed and noted the excuse…Police not interested though.
I am going to chuck in a
I am going to chuck in a couple of (very minor) mitigating factors in this and of course jump to a totally uninformed conclusion.
There are initially 2 cyclists in the video, the first signals and then turns left while the victim is initially sitting on thier wheel before going straight on at the lights. I suspect the driver has made the assumption that they were riding together and would both be turning left. Further up the road the left lane is closed off and I suspect the driver is already focusing on the lane to thier right as they accelerate into a gap.
As to the faulty brake light – No all 3 are working OK, in thier panis they appear to have engaged reverse for a moment after they stopped.
The only suggestion I would make to the rider would be to have been riding in the primary position to discourage any attempt to pass them within the lane. That way he could have said cheerio to his mate at the same time.
When I am riding with a group and we are splitting up, particularly at a roundabout I like to encourage everyone to signal seperatly.
I don’t think it’s nearly as
I don’t think it’s nearly as clear cut as is made out
1) as EKS says above, the first cyclist turns left. wrong, but not unreasonable to assume the second will too
2) after the first turns left, the second is now largely hidden behind the car’s A pillar. I see so many of these types of videos where the response is that the cyclist should have been obvious to the driver. well guess what, modern A pillars are thick and they aren’t see-through. i learned the hard way about A pillars getting hit on a mini-roundabout with both of us doing 5mph…
3) as much as i hate to be critical of anyone who gets hurt, let alone seriously, the cyclist seemed as unaware of the car as the car was of the cyclist. in this situation you’re going to have to either filter on the left ahead, in which case there’s yards of tarmac to the left to be safe in while all the cars whizz past (before hitting their brakes), or better still if you’re worried about being left hooked take primary position. the two lanes merge ahead anyway so you’re not slowing anyone down. draughting a left-turning bike and then going straight is neither one thing nor the other
sorry if i’m offending anyone, but that’s how i see it. hope the cyclist makes a quick and full recovery. never nice hitting the deck 🙁
NOC40 wrote:
Not the way I see the video. Bear in mind that the door mirror on most cars is pretty much in line with the A pillar. Now watch the video again and focus on the door mirror. The car drifts left, the speed difference is very apparent, the door mirror sweeps up behind the cyclist and swipes him off the bike. By the time the cyclist is obscured by the A pillar its already too late.
The two posts immediately
The two posts immediately before
mineedit – Yorkshire Wallet’s – scare me.Two vehicles in front, one signalling left and the other not but it’s suggested that it’s not unreasonable to assume both are turning left. Why? You shouldn’t ‘assume’ anything when driving, you should be watching what is actually happening and driving accordingly.
The cyclist hit is riding in a straight and steady line and is clearly visible (well before he may have disappeared momentarily behind an A pillar); why would you make excuses for inexcusable driving and putting blame on the victim by suggesting his road position is poor.
You can make as many excuses for the driver as you like, I’m sure she’ll have a few of her own too but she is driving carelessly at best and arguably dangerously – she is driving below the standard that you would expect a safe and competent driver should.
ps – I’m not offended, I’m just worried that people see this as acceptable driving and that the cyclist has contributed to his own downfall. Like I said, it scares me that the above two posters may actually be driving on the road with that attitude.
psling wrote:
Also, the excuses made for the driver only touch on their behaviour after the first cyclist turns left.
Before that, as soon as the video starts, they’re already being an impatient, careless dick – too close, buzzing the cyclists.
It’s just shit driving.
psling – it’s quite common
psling – it’s quite common for people who cycle to not support other cyclists even when they have been hurt by obvious bad driving. They may indeed “be driving on the road with that attitude” – plenty of cyclists do not drive motor vehicles in the way they should be driven.
The driver veers slightly to
The driver veers slightly to the left and into the path of the cyclist just before the collision, which suggests distraction at the wheel. Phone? Texting? Changing the cassette? Reprogramming the GPS? Seems likely from where I’m sitting.
Such poor decision-making, which is at base the fault of the driver for failing to respect the virtual 1.5m box that should exist around every cyclist. It should also be noted that the very last place to attempt overtaking manoeuvres is at junctions. Absolute folly.
A ban and test re-sit for the driver seems the just measure for such cases, plus an audit of the driving school and examination centre that passed them fit to drive in the first place. Someone obviously forgot to explain that that pedal in the middle is a footbrake, and that’s what you use until there’s a good moment to overtake.
That said, had the cyclist had taken an assertive primary position in his lane of choice, and veered ever so slightly towards the middle of the road as the motorist approached, he would have cut himself a little margin to duck into when the pass turns out to be close.
dougie_c wrote:
Eh? If the driver was distracted in the manner you speculate, and the cyclist is in primary, as you suggest, then…
In this hypothetical, allow me to speculate that the driver would have rear-ended and driven over the cyclist.
“Must get in front; must get
“Must get in front; must get in front; must get in front…”
two road users, neither have
two road users, neither have good road sense, both seem half-asleep, cyclist comes off worse
not in any way a “nasty collision”, police were called, wasting both their time and ours by reporting this non-event
beezus fufoon wrote:
If the driver “seems half asleep” then they are ‘Driving without due care & attention’.
You think it’s not worth prosecuting someone for that?
It’s not like anyone is ever killed by a driver not paying attention…
Rich_cb wrote:
two road users, neither have good road sense, both seem half-asleep, cyclist comes off worse
not in any way a “nasty collision”, police were called, wasting both their time and ours by reporting this non-event
— Rich_cb If the driver “seems half asleep” then they are ‘Driving without due care & attention’.
You think it’s not worth prosecuting someone for that?
It’s not like anyone is ever killed by a driver not paying attention…— beezus fufoon
It’s more like I don’t think it’s worth a hysterical daily mail type response.
I am in favour of politicising the cause of cycling over the promotion of the combustion engine, and for me that means a broad, long term strategy – so I’m dubious about the media hype around individual cases… I wonder whether they do anything other than serve to rationalise aready entrenched views and whip up bad feeling while missing the bigger picture…
on top of that, who the hell rides like that? It certainly doesn’t reflect my reality on the road, so I find it a bit suspect – on a scale of 1-10, the action shown in this video is ranks about 2 in my experience of riding – something that happens regularly and is very easily avoided, and yet it gets a load of coverage for some reason – what actual agenda is being pursued here?
A couple of commenters have
A couple of commenters have mentioned that the guy on the bike might have looked back at the car.
I do tend do look back at traffic, but I remember the pro cyclist who did 2014 TDF route videos commented that you should just look ahead on a busy road. If you look back, you tend to swing out, he said. Plus, on a busy road, there are just so many vehicles, that you’re looking back to check on them all the time.
In this case, it’s clearly careless driving, and the driver should be prosecuted. Looking back at traffic is a side issue, but I’d be interested to know what other people think.
the more I look at the vid –
the more I look at the vid – 6 seconds with a car less than half a metre away, 4 of those seconds with it right next to him in his line of vision, and his head is perfectly still, riding a dead straight line…
beezus fufoon wrote:
Blimey, you’d almost think the cyclist was expecting the driver of the car to pass him safely!
And what you are suggesting above is why this kind of bad driving should be dealt with either by education or by punishment. In my opinion the cyclist should be allowed to expect that drivers will pass him safely.
psling wrote:
no, I think the cyclist, or stuntman, was expecting that exact move and deliberately waited 4 seconds while the car very slowly edged across into him.
Sorry, edited whilst you were
Sorry beezus fufoon, edited whilst you were posting.
I take it you’re suggesting ‘fake news’ ?
psling wrote:
I wouldn’t put money on it – but something seems a bit off there – the guy talking notices straight away, and the impact is at 6 seconds – that is a very long time for a cyclist to not react in my opinion.
beezus fufoon wrote:
Their fall is a bit ‘stunt’… but let’s assume it isn’t.
I think you might be over-egging the time they’ve actually had to react… They’ll be aware of a car behind them, but I think it only really encroaches on them a couple of seconds before hitting them. The cyclist slightly wobbles prior to the collision, which suggests to me they’ve only just become aware of exactly how close the car is, and maybe had the ‘wtf’ look sideways as HarrogateSpa mentioned above. I think somewhere between 5 and 6 seconds on the video the cyclist becomes aware.. and is then hit pretty instantly.
But even if they knew how close it was, at that point they can’t have known that the car was going to try to get past at that distance. I’m often approached too close by drivers that then take wide swerves round to get past… You’ve got your head down, you’re aware of a car behind… and then you’re only aware of how much room they’ve actually given you as they overtake. By then it’s too late to get them to take any other route, and I cannot eyeball every single car that passes me on a ride. I’m not an owl.
So how do you react in that situation? The only feasible actions at that point are to swerve off left in the junction, or to go ape-shit at the car/driver (or a combination of the two) – either of which the cyclist would have had to do in a split second, while they’re pre-occupied with correcting the wobble/trying to avoid being hit by a car that is pretty determinedly being driven into them. They only know when it’s too late. If you pulled over or went mental over every potential danger on the road, you’d either make no progress or get arrested/be assaulted sharpish.
tl;dr: none of this is on the cyclist – it’s all the driver’s fault.
davel wrote:
that’s exactly what I’m not seeing which made me question it in the first place – zero head movement
beezus fufoon wrote:
that’s exactly what I’m not seeing which made me question it in the first place – zero head movement — davel
Ah yes – could be a simultaneous sideways-glance-and-shit-themselves.
All speculation of course, but I’m thinking them being startled caused the minor wobble.
All of what the cyclist did/didn’t do is irrelevant compared to the twat in the car preferring to risk the cyclist’s physical wellbeing over their own shitmobile’s paintwork.
What pisses me off more than
What pisses me off more than anything in this country is this postcode-lottery mentality that seems to have crept into every walk of life. Whether it’s the police’s attitude to assault (which this boils down to), or cancer care treatment or social care the processes and opportunitiy should be the same wherever you are. Even ‘universally shit’ would be preferential to inconsistent.
Anyway, hope the poor chap recovers soon and the perps future insurance premiums cripple them.
I think psling misunderstood
I think psling misunderstood my post, I wasn’t attempting to EXCUSE bad driving, but rather EXPLAIN what I though was happening based on ALL the evidence visible.
Doesn’t mean I think it is acceptabe, or that I think it is above the level of a safe and competent driver.
Indeed when watching the video again I hadn’t realy taken into account the initial position of the car whih was impatiently and aggresively close at the start of the clip. That in itself should be enough for a visit from the rozzers
get yourself armoured up with
get yourself armoured up with that what ice hokey playerz use. cars give you much more space cos they know there car will get damaged much more than with soft body and clothing. in winters full facecover helmet keeps warm and also something hard for argewments if it comes to that.
This was an accident waiting
This was an accident waiting to happen. It reminds me of how drivers take chances when in a long queue of cars stuck behing a slow moving vehicle. It can be very frustrating and some will attempt to overtake in locations where there really isn’t enough room. The solution that works best is that the slow moving vehicle pulls in to a layby to let the other traffic past and everyone feels grateful for their thoughtfulness.
While I am not saying the cyclist did anything wrong … the car driver was clearly at fault … they could have easily avoided this accident by either moving out of the lane by a couple of feet to let the traffic they were holding up past (there was space at the junction where the car driver clearly thought she had her best oportunity to sneak past), or they could have cycled in the coned off lane (a makeshift segregated bike lane?) where they were safer and weren’t holding up traffic … yes I know this is wrong, but it would have been safer and the held up traffic would have been grateful for the consideration shown.
Alternatively, the cyclist could have ‘taken the lane’ to prevent other traffic from sneaking past, and likely would have resulted in some abuse as being stuck being slow moving vehicles with little chance for overtaking is a real pain in the ass, particularly if you are in a hurry. This just leads to aggression and accidents, particulary when the slow moving vehcle (cyclist) has an opportunity to let other traffic past, but chooses not to take it.
What we really need is more segregated bike lanes, but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.
nbrus wrote:
So if, as frequently happens to me and looks like it’s going to happen shortly after this point, the cyclist finds himself approaching a tailback of motor vehicles selfishly hogging the lane, are you suggesting that they all pull courteously into the side to allow the faster cyclist to steam through? Or perhaps the behaviour that you’re describing is impractical in denser traffic.
Well….. you kinda are really aren’t you? If I punch you in the mouth and people say “it was obviously the aggressor’s fault, but nbrus could have avoided it by handing over his wallet and anyway, everyone knows that if you go into that part of the town you’ll get mugged”… then they are blaming you aren’t they? “Legally nbrus is blameless… but really… wearing that short a skirt ….” It’s a form of argumentation known as apophasis ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apophasis ).
What?! The at-fault car-driver should have cycled in the coned-off lane?!! Oh… no.. I see what you are suggesting: the not-at-fault cyclist should have sneaked into the gutter because cones around a traffic lane NEVER suggest that the lane is closed because it has something wrong with it. Interesting.
You know, I occupy primary whenever I judge it to be safer… I have rarely had abuse. The only times I have been in what I felt to be dangerous situations was when I did not do so.
No. We need an entire shift away from the normalisation of motorvehicle transport and an extensive, connected network of bikelanes with the motorvehicles segregated onto a restricted, expensive network. A few more segregated bike lanes are not going to solve anything.
The sanctimony of this speaks for itself.
Ush wrote:
I think your post says it all. Not only have you misunderstood what I’ve said, but you are showing all the signs of self-rightousness and selfishness that leads to aggression between cyclists and other road users. You are unable to see both sides of the problem and even when you can you’re not going to be the one that will change.
nbrus wrote:
Why do you assume that there are only two sides of the problem here? I would bet you a considerable sum of money that the poor bugger that was knocked down here thinks very similarly to you. That’s why he was not in primary. And that’s what happens when you start behaving in a way that is different from other vehicles on the road: predicting your position becomes difficult and it encourages idiots to try their idiot moves.
What you are advocating is behaving illegally and, more importantly, dangerously. Nipping in to lanes closed off with traffic cones because you fear the wrath or displeasure of another road user is likely to lead to accidents.
It’s simple: follow the rules, ride where people can see you, signal clearly and expect that they have low IQs. The stats show that if you do that stuff then you’ll be fine.
Alternatively you can cower in the gutter and admonish other cyclists for getting knocked down and then ride up the inside of a truck on your segretated bikelane and get squashed at a junction.
Your call.
nbrus wrote:
Yes it would, and the appropriate onus really needs to be on the operators of the devices that cause carnage on the roads.
nbrus wrote:
No! What we really need is people in vehicles to take care of other road users, to concentrate on their driving, to overtake properly, to recognise that in busy traffic a bike can be going faster than bigger vehicles, to use their mirrors and indicators, to get the fuck off their phones/sat navs /sandwiches, to see cyclists as people and not some kind of obstruction to be got round at all costs…
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
What we really need is more segregated bike lanes, but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.
— Daveyraveygravey No! What we really need is people in vehicles to take care of other road users, to concentrate on their driving, to overtake properly, to recognise that in busy traffic a bike can be going faster than bigger vehicles, to use their mirrors and indicators, to get the fuck off their phones/sat navs /sandwiches, to see cyclists as people and not some kind of obstruction to be got round at all costs…— nbrus
It seems to me that in any walk of life or driving any size vehicle, people will try to take the piss and bully their way in – either you develop a strategy for dealing with that (either give way or assert yourself), or you can complain about how unfair it is while sprawled on the ground.
beezus fufoon wrote:
Sorry, but this is a silly comment.
I do tend to agree that in any walk of life people in more powerful positions will show a tendency to abuse that power, as that’s how human beings roll. (Lord Acton said it more succinctly).
But firstly, ‘size of vehicle’ misses the point slightly – even a smallish car gives you far more physical protection than does a bike. So a small car vs a lorry isn’t the same situation as a bike vs a car.
Secondly the two things you suggest are quite obviously not the only two options. A third one, a far more popular one than your suggestions, is not to cycle. The fourth one is to try and get the physical environment changed to make it much harder for the more powerful party to abuse their power (so, oddly, nbrus started off well before veering off into ‘share the road’ bollocks)
(Emotionally I agree with daveyravey, but rationally I just think ‘yeah, good luck with that’)
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
What we really need is more segregated bike lanes, but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos No! What we really need is people in vehicles to take care of other road users, to concentrate on their driving, to overtake properly, to recognise that in busy traffic a bike can be going faster than bigger vehicles, to use their mirrors and indicators, to get the fuck off their phones/sat navs /sandwiches, to see cyclists as people and not some kind of obstruction to be got round at all costs…— beezus fufoon
It seems to me that in any walk of life or driving any size vehicle, people will try to take the piss and bully their way in – either you develop a strategy for dealing with that (either give way or assert yourself), or you can complain about how unfair it is while sprawled on the ground.
— Daveyraveygravey Sorry, but this is a silly comment.
I do tend to agree that in any walk of life people in more powerful positions will show a tendency to abuse that power, as that’s how human beings roll. (Lord Acton said it more succinctly).
But firstly, ‘size of vehicle’ misses the point slightly – even a smallish car gives you far more physical protection than does a bike. So a small car vs a lorry isn’t the same situation as a bike vs a car.
Secondly the two things you suggest are quite obviously not the only two options. A third one, a far more popular one than your suggestions, is not to cycle. The fourth one is to try and get the physical environment changed to make it much harder for the more powerful party to abuse their power (so, oddly, nbrus started off well before veering off into ‘share the road’ bollocks)
(Emotionally I agree with daveyravey, but rationally I just think ‘yeah, good luck with that’)— nbrus
so you’re saying that as a cyclist in the current environment, you have necessarily chosen the less powerful position, and should behave accordingly by generally deferring to the more powerful and by appealing to authority in cases of perceived abuse?
beezus fufoon wrote:
Sorry, but this is a silly comment.
I do tend to agree that in any walk of life people in more powerful positions will show a tendency to abuse that power, as that’s how human beings roll. (Lord Acton said it more succinctly).
But firstly, ‘size of vehicle’ misses the point slightly – even a smallish car gives you far more physical protection than does a bike. So a small car vs a lorry isn’t the same situation as a bike vs a car.
Secondly the two things you suggest are quite obviously not the only two options. A third one, a far more popular one than your suggestions, is not to cycle. The fourth one is to try and get the physical environment changed to make it much harder for the more powerful party to abuse their power (so, oddly, nbrus started off well before veering off into ‘share the road’ bollocks)
(Emotionally I agree with daveyravey, but rationally I just think ‘yeah, good luck with that’)— Daveyraveygravey
so you’re saying that as a cyclist in the current environment, you have necessarily chosen the less powerful position, and should behave accordingly by generally deferring to the more powerful and by appealing to authority in cases of perceived abuse?— nbrus
What? You don’t appear to have read what I wrote. Are you saying there are only those two options or not?
I’m saying that in a situation which is fubar, there’s no perfect way for the individual to respond. People have to just muddle -through with what approach seems best to them, and, rather than putting too much energy into trying to secure a one-up position for yourself in relation to those who are also trying to cope with the fubar situation, it would be better to concentrate on changing that situation.
So its pointless to be constantly looking for things that the more vulnerable party ‘did wrong’ in incidents like this. I find it tiresome when people keep doing that.
I mean, someone ‘takes the lane’ and gets hit, then someone will pipe up saying they were asking for trouble getting in drivers’ way like that. If they cycle in the gutter and get clipped by a too-close overtaker, someone will immediately say they bought it on themselves by not taking the lane. It just seems like a pointless ego-contest that doesn’t help.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’m saying that in a situation which is fubar, there’s no perfect way for the individual to respond. People have to just muddle -through with what approach seems best to them, and, rather than putting too much energy into trying to secure a one-up position for yourself in relation to those who are also trying to cope with the fubar situation, it would be better to concentrate on changing that situation.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I agree with the basic idea here, I was talking about how to deal with it today and tomorrow rather than how to deal with different situations which may arise under different conditions in the future.
I have observed though, that on the cycle superhighways there are very similar patterns of behaviour, with some trying to barge their way through, others trying to avoid them, while a third “type” seem oblivious to this one-upmanship.
I mean, someone ‘takes the lane’ and gets hit, then someone will pipe up saying they were asking for trouble getting in drivers’ way like that. If they cycle in the gutter and get clipped by a too-close overtaker, someone will immediately say they bought it on themselves by not taking the lane. It just seems like a pointless ego-contest that doesn’t help.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
As you said above – it is more about the individuals in relation to the fubar situation and focusing on how that situation can be improved. As such, any focus on either party’s behaviour shifts the focus away from improving the situation and instead turns it into a personal battle between competing individuals.
To me it just looks like he’s
To me it just looks like he’s maybe started by the sound of car that’s too close and probably that creeping feeling you get when spidersense tells you someone is too close.
Anyway you cut it, if you freeze frame it then the car has a shitload of space on the right it’s not using. Even without contact it’s nowhere near a safe pass.
Crap driving and under the
Crap driving and under the close pass initiative this would certainly merit police action.
not to mention… the youtube
not to mention… the youtube channel hosting this vid proudly claim they have worked with the mail…
Riding in to and out of Leeds
Riding in to and out of Leeds, I do about 10,000 miles a year. I have over the years, been knocked off more than once. From these incidents I have learned that you can expect little support from the police unless you are dead. Sad but true.
The police are stretched and can only react to the targets they are given and the crimes that they face. As such road safety for cyclists is at the bottom of the pecking order.
If you survive an accident, that’s great. But that’s about it.
“While I am not saying the
“While I am not saying the cyclist did anything wrong … the car driver was clearly at fault … they could have easily avoided this accident by either moving out of the lane by a couple of feet to let the traffic they were holding up past (there was space at the junction where the car driver clearly thought she had her best oportunity to sneak past), or they could have cycled in the coned off lane (a makeshift segregated bike lane?) where they were safer and weren’t holding up traffic … yes I know this is wrong, but it would have been safer and the held up traffic would have been grateful for the consideration shown”.
Whilst I would certainly have taken the lane, I cannot disagree more with this. If you are suggesting we all move left every time a junction widens then surely we are encouraging piss poor driving and endangering ourselves when we come back together.
The cones on the left (prior to the junction) would have placed you in the wrong position for a car that may turn left, if you are talking of the cones post junction then it’s too late. Also, if you factor those in, surely there’s notices, reduced speed in place and the driver is looking to filter right, so why are they so close behind an impatient.
I would wager the driver knows of the closed lane and is trying to jump the queue, that’s why they are aggressively driving behind the bike and not concentrating – waiting for a few inches of gap to open up that they can nose dive into.
alansmurphy wrote:
Taking the lane would have been better …. if there is insufficient room to pass, then not creating an opportunity for someone to excercise poor judgment is the safest thing to do. However, it does nothing to appease other road users that are being held up.
I would also add that moving to the left to let others past would not only prevent piss poor driving resulting from poor judgment, but you would also be taking responsibility for your own safety when merging back in to the flow of traffic. I would much prefer to take responsibility for my own safety than leave it to others.
nbrus wrote:
Taking the lane would have been better …. if there is insufficient room to pass, then not creating an opportunity for someone to excercise poor judgment is the safest thing to do. However, it does nothing to appease other road users that are being held up.
I would also add that moving to the left to let others past would not only prevent piss poor driving resulting from poor judgment, but you would also be taking responsibility for your own safety when merging back in to the flow of traffic. I would much prefer to take responsibility for my own safety than leave it to others.— alansmurphy
You maybe let 3 cars in front of you by doing that. It’s bumper-to-bumper – nobody’s going anywhere. Then
1. You have to merge back in. Queuing drivers love cyclists coming from nowhere and filtering back in. You have to appeal to a queuing driver to let you back onto a bit of road that you had.
2. You’re in exactly the same situation as you were – you just replace one queuing driver behind you with another.
If I’m genuinely holding up traffic, I have no issue with pulling to the left/waving traffic past. But in this situation, the one we’re talking about, where are the MGIFers going to go? Chances are you’ll be filtering past them soon anyway, and all you’ve done is reinforce the views of the drivers who’ve seen you pull out of the way that cyclists should defer to motons.
davel wrote:
You’re right, just use your judgment for each situation and do what is most appropriate. I never suggested ALWAYS moving to the left.
The rozzers just sent me this
The rozzers just sent me this via twitter;
reading the Daily Mail
reading the Daily Mail comments, it appears that Astra drivers are *below* cyclists in the DM evolutionary scale!
Ramuz… You may have said
double post, sorry