The live blog can be a little slow to load at times, so please be patient. Try refreshing the page if it’s really reluctant to appear.
Live blog: Edinburgh primary school bike bus; Peter Sagan in bizarre relay race; chauffeur in road rage incident says his manoeuvre “was perfectly safe” + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond…
Fri, Oct 26, 2018 08:55
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn’t especially like cake.
23 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Chris RideFar 10 minutes ago
@tomlew That's one (very insignificant) positive effect of global warming - I've noticed that the busy season for bike mechanics is now longer than it used to be. Obviously, I would still prefer it if global warming wasn't happening.
beryl666 18 minutes ago
Maybe Shimano should allow EVERYONE to create FREE Acct and login to lessons and database and NOT just those already employed in a shop!
AidanR 1 hour ago
I like 1x on the road, but I rode a singlespeed for years so perhaps I'm comfortable with a broader range of cadences.
NotNigel 2 hours ago
“In Lancashire I get a message saying whether or not action is being taken, and in one case where the driver ended up in court the police contacted me for a witness statement. Here at least “Operation Snap” seems to lead to actual enforcement.” This statement has definitely been chosen to wind up a certain, Lancashire based cyclist.
wtjs 3 hours ago
@ttudge I now get a response to every submission. I have had follow up calls asking if I am available should a prosecution go to court Excellent. Well done Warwickshire Police, from somebody in Lancashire where where there is never any response to any submission and nobody has ever been prosecuted for any non-contact offence against a cyclist. Do you have any example of an offence where there's an online video and it went to prosecution, and what the outcome was? Or even one where there was a proper penalty and the 'Reviewing Officer' told you the outcome by email or letter. This is the sort of incident I mean for online video (insert 'h' at the beginning of URL) ttps://upride.cc/incident/sk19evu_stagecoach42_closepass/
ttudge 4 hours ago
Up until about 5 years ago, I had very mixed information from Warwickshire Police's OpSnap. Then it changed. I now get a response to every submission. I have had follow up calls asking if I am available should a prosecution go to court. I have had feedback on some of my interactions with the drivers. (Do not engage) Best though is that the reviewing officer has said that it is his job to update me on any cases I wish to follow up. I even started keeping a record of NFAs, warning letters and NIPs. If I had to fill in one of those annoying surveys, I would recommend Warwickshire Police's OpSnap.
rookybiker 4 hours ago
Hurra to the European Cycling Industries' manifesto. There needs to be a crackdown on illegal e-bike mods.
Rendel Harris 5 hours ago
@IanMK But Davies was charged with causing death by careless driving, which is an offence under the RTA, therefore the RTA must apply. You seem to have missed the fact that the employee went to trial.
Rendel Harris 5 hours ago
*Sound of brain imploding in the Surrey area*
wtjs 6 hours ago
@VIPcyclist The State treats cyclists suffering a nearmiss as the witness to an offence, the State being the victim. IMO this is one of the main issues that cyclists need to campaign against Too right! But for 'State' read 'police' ttps://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/ The police have fought for 4 1/2 years to prevent me finding out what they did about this incident, after they claimed they were taking action. They're presently fighting against me finding out as a 'victim', and it's presently at the determinedly anti-freedom-of-information Information Commissioner, which is on a go-slow dodge at the moment. It's obvious from the time and expense the police are desperate to expend in denying the information that they did either nothing at all, or sent the joke advice letter for the public service vehicle driver to ignore. My worry was 'what do I do if the police just lie about it?'
23 thoughts on “Live blog: Edinburgh primary school bike bus; Peter Sagan in bizarre relay race; chauffeur in road rage incident says his manoeuvre “was perfectly safe” + more”
Quote:
I’m going to go with, “Because it was signposted as a left-turn-only lane, so them’s the rules, innit?”
Sorry, based on this limited
Sorry, based on this limited evidence, I’m with the driver.
MarkiMark wrote:
So you think the rules don’t apply? Awesome.
”It was perfectly safe” is the driving equivalent of “it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye”.
vonhelmet wrote:
In all fairness, it doesn’t say that the chauffeur said it was perfectly safe for the cyclist…
MarkiMark wrote:
If you watch the longer version of the vid, you can see the driver drifting left towards a parked white van, presumably cutting off the cyclist who he is still driving along next to having a chat.
MarkiMark wrote:
“limited evidence” is the problem.
The driver has released an edited video which only shows what happens after the traffic starts moving at the lights. The cyclist is clearly already annoyed – but we’re not allowed to see what the driver did to upset him.
Instead we get the driver going straight on in a left only lane then pulling alongside the cyclist and berating him before overtaking and pulling in to block him. Why? Up to the point the cyclist had done nothing wrong, yet the driver feels the need to drive alongside and lecture him and when that doesn’t work stop him to complete the lecture.
The driver knew he’s done something wrong, but he won’t let us see what it was.
“It was perfectly safe”,
“It was perfectly safe”, sorry matey, but It’s not your call.
don simon wrote:
Ah, but you are forgetting, he’s a professional driver….
As for the cyclist, I would have used the other side of the wheel, save damaging the rear mech.
Many comments on this and
Many comments on this and linked posts follow the maxim that the cyclist is always right because he’s a cyclist right?, and the driver is obviously always wrong because they’re all dangerous idiots. It’s a very blinkered way of looking at things. As a regular cyclist around London I see moronic cyclists who shame the rest of us (and yes, moronic motorists also). I suspect only a couple of people know the facts about who was in the wrong in this case. The cyclist, however, has done himself no favours at all in deciding to commit criminal damage to get his point across.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
I think that driver was obviously wrong for driving straight on from a “left-only” lane and then using his vehicle to block in the cyclist. The cyclist didn’t react well, but it’s very easy to over-react when idiots are putting your life at risk with their idiotic driving.
hawkinspeter wrote:
On the one hand you have someone making another human feel threatened by the incorrect and intimidating use of their car. On the other hand you have someone making another human feel threatened by throwing a bike against the car and through wagging their finger.
Stacking those threats up against each other, the cyclist under-reacted. The driver needs to grow a pair and be thankful he wasn’t twatted.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
In this case though… the driver has admitted to driving improperly… because he judged it was safe to do so. Rules are put in place because people are clearly incapable (by constant demonstration) of making effective judgements themselves.
The cyclist does indeed do himself no favours however… these situations never end well, so why bother engaging with these idiots? The only time to do so is when you are certain you can stay calm and rational… which is very rarely (never) in the hear of the moment.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
Get some T-Cut, I’m sure the scratch in the bonnet will buff out.
Well that’s a ridiculous
Well that’s a ridiculous first post.
There’s a couple of key points to me – rarely does a cyclists mistake lead to an innocent party losing their life. Secondly, it’s apparent who was in the wrong, the taxi driver was deliberately using the wrong lane to not sit behind a right turning lorry, he said so himself.
Well played on the “I’m a cyclist” bit though…
alansmurphy wrote:
Well, thanks – you’re clearly a nice, amiable chap.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
He has his moments.
I found the longer version
I found the longer version others have mentioned, which is misrepresented by the headline in the London Evening Standard.
The guy on the bike knows where the traffic is – all to his right – except that when the chauffeur goes straight on from a left turn lane, he’s got a vehicle (driven by an impatient driver) right behind him. I completely understand why he’s unhappy about that.
When the chauffeur acts like the police and pulls him over by blocking him into the kerb, and saying ‘you’re in trouble now’ several times, I suggest that’s a threat, not the behaviour of an innocent victim of road rage.
The main thing concerning the paper is how much did the car cost, which says everything you need to know about Britain in 2018.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Even before it gets that far it’s clear the driver wants an argument, he rolls down his window and starts shouting accusations at the cyclist. . . and on a par when everyone I’ve ever had a “discussion” with about their driving style, he KNOWS he was in the wrong, because he simply refuses to allow the cyclist to say more than 3 words before interrupting him again.
Ever had that discussion that starts with “Why don’t you use the cycle lane ?” (In this case a shared use, narrow, down a hill under a roundabout, pick an arm in the centre while trying to peer through the concrete walls, and back up the hill on the other side . . . followed by “you cause queues by not using that cycle lane” . . having pointed out I actually follow the road at the same speed as the other traffic (owing to the give way lines etc) I then get the “You ride through the roundabout too fast, doing 40-60km/h”
StuInNorway wrote:
never really a discussion though, is it? Which is why in my experience if you respond at all the only correct response is “why don’t you fuck off?”
If it was a “perfectly safe”
Watching the longer version quoted above, it sounds as if the driver pulls in front, alongside him and then pulls over – using his vehicle to block him in. I’ve had it tonnes of times before. In too much of a rush to wait, then pull over and stop to have a ding-dong with you.
“I didn’t pull in front of
“I didn’t pull in front of you”, “it’s on camera”!
Sorry mate but if I employed you as my chauffeur*, you would be looking for another job due to lack of integrity, honesty and for allowing my vehicle to be damaged to the tune of £1500 because of your idiocy.
I have seen the footage. You did not adhere to the traffic regulations at that junction and proceeded to engage in a totally avoidable altercation with someone who looked at you. You also then DID deliberatly pull directly in front of the cyclist who YOU antagonised and therefore YOU are reponsible for the outcome.
Here is your P45, now go and work for someone who is happy for you to put their family at risk whilst you are driving them around town.
*Assuming that this is a personal hired chauffuer
Pushing50 wrote:
Mini cab driver, in my experiance hardly professional and the majority fall far below the driving standards of black cab drivers in London. Although sometimes that is not a vey high bar.
As well as the paperwork and lanugage tests perhaps TFL should make them pass an advanced driving test?
Driver cant drive. Cyclist
Driver cant drive. Cyclist shouldnt have responded.
Did the cyclist smack the car or did the driver just pull in anyway ?
Not worth the hassle getting involved.