A London cyclist has urged CS3 users to ride more cautiously after uploading footage of a head-on collision between two riders. The two collided when one attempted to overtake another cyclist on a narrow stretch of the cycle superhighway at Blackfriars.
Writing on YouTube, video uploader 4ChordsNoNet said: “This section of CS3 (East/West Cycle Superhighway) is one of the narrowest, yet it doesn’t stop some people from riding too fast and trying to overtake at busy times.”
The footage shows a number of riders overtaking, but when one woman attempts to pass a man on a Boris Bike who is riding a little more centrally, she finds herself cramped for room and ends up colliding with someone approaching from the other direction.
Even worse, footage from a rear-facing camera shows that the cyclist she hits is then run into by a following rider as he lies on the ground. That person is then catapulted over the kerb and into the road. 4ChordsNoNet explained that fortunately the phasing of the lights meant the traffic had been held back.
Speaking about the aftermath, they add:
“The female cyclist that caused this chain of events had a swollen finger, grazed and maybe broken, difficult to tell. She also complained about hert shoulder, and when following her afterwards, she was constantly rubbing her thigh.
“The cyclist going the other way that she hit, needed help to get up. He said that he was okay, but I think he may have some more serious injuries that will did not surface at the time. The one that hit him and ended up in the road, seemed perfectly fine, if not a bit bruised.”
And as if fellow cyclists were not significant enough obstacles, YouTube user Simon Allen recently captured footage of a car driving in another stretch of London’s cycle superhighway network.
108 thoughts on “Video: Head-on collision with another cyclist on CS3”
Lets hope none of them had
Lets hope none of them had disc brakes 😉 /sarcasm
Does go to show the risk of these segregated lanes without barriers, that could have been very nasty. I have a section of shared use path with a 3-lane 50mph carriageway alongside sans barriers; you have to be very positive with your positioning to ensure you don’t end up playing pavement ballet.
kil0ran wrote:
It’s not real segregation, is it. Virtually no different to a line of paint. Vehicles going past are not really significantly less close and there is simply no protection should anyone suddenly swerve.
Why that guy though he could squeeze through though…?!
Lets hope none of them had
[quote=kil0ran]Lets hope none of them had disc brakes 😉 [quote]
I think that was Ventoso who went down. Damn those disc brakes. May as well forced him to play Russian Roulette
That’s a lot of camera mounts
That’s a lot of camera mounts for one bike.
Jeffmcguinness wrote:
Two Edge mounts on the bike running GoPro Hero 3+ and a helmet mounted Contour+2
4ChordsNoNet wrote:
Clearly someone who has never seen Traffid Droid’s setup (SonofthewindsInc on YT)
StuInNorway wrote:
I have seen Lewis’ set up in the flesh on a number of occasions. I have no intention of adding anymore cameras, don’t see the point, as what I have is enough to record any incidents happening to me, which is why I use them, anything else ‘caught on camera’ is a bonus, such as this.
I could add a rear facing one on my handlebars, but all that would show is my hairy legs. Also the more cameras I have the more footage I collect and the longer it takes to edit a video.
Crikey, didn’t realise these
Crikey, didn’t realise these cycleways were so narrow without dividers on fast looking sections. I bet that’s not the first time it’s happened.
Broady. wrote:
To me that width is only suitable for one way traffic only!
whobiggs wrote:
To me that width was only suitable for slower speeds only!
My wife had this done to her
My wife had this done to her last year. A normal two lane cycle lane at night , she was in full high vis reflective gear, lights on bike and helmet and this dickhead with no lights, no helmet came pelting along and rode into her head on. Wasn’t anything around to force him into her lane.
She hit the guy coming the
She hit the guy coming the other way because the Boris biker wobbled into her. Nevertheless, a bit more care all round probably wouldn’t go amiss.
Grizzerly wrote:
Close pass…?
Grizzerly wrote:
I’ve watched it a few times and it looks like he’s wide anyway and she takes his bar. She looks like she overestimated the space or his bar width.
Looking at the clip, I think I’d rather ride next to cars.
Grizzerly wrote:
Grizzerly watch the video closely, the Boris Biker wobbled into her due to the fact she clipped the handle bars of the Boris Biker in her impatience to get by him.
The overtaking cyclist is to blame for the whole incident
craigstitt wrote:
Overconfidence I think
craigstitt wrote:
Overconfidence I think
Grizzerly wrote:
She hit the guy coming the other way because she tried to squeeze through a gap that wan’t there and clipped the handlebars of the Boris Bike.
Grizzerly wrote:
No. Tried to overtake in a gap that wasn’t there. Clipped the handlebars of the boris bike causing him to wobble. Maybe boris bike could have moved further left but the route isn’t intended to be 3 bikes wide anyway.
Turns out cyclists can carry out dangerously close passes just like cars. Oncoming cyclist (blameless) lucky not to be knocked under a motor vehicle.
Grizzerly wrote:
no
Grizzerly wrote:
No he didn’t, he did not move at all, she was way too close even before the oncoming bike came.
Further proof that segregated
Further proof that segregated cycle ways dont work, they merely appease the do gooders
duc888 wrote:
You are probably trolling but I guess I will bite:
You see a cycle lane full of cyclists and then explain that it is “not working”. Perhaps you need a re-think, extrapolating one video of an accident to writing off a whole concept is pushing the realms of credibilty somewhat.
P3t3 wrote:
I think you have just completely misinterpreted P3t3’s intended message. It’s just that what is referred to as segregated clearly is not segregrated properly/adequately/safely.
In context, this cycleway doesn’t work because of the flow of bikes in both directions and sheer volume, but it does prove the concept is sound and that there should be 2 lanes and not just 1 lane.
I feel that it appeases the motorists or do-gooders on their behalf.
duc888 wrote:
No, segreagated lane work just fine.
But you need some common sense whereever you are riding.
Isn’t this the bit where they
Isn’t this the bit where they skimped on the width of the cycle way to pander to concerns about vehicle capacity by not removing another vehicle lane?
The 2 way cycle routes are not a brilliant idea for lots of reasons, this is an example of one of them. At that width it is only really safe as a one way path. They just haven’t built the corresponding cycle path on the other side of the road yet. The thing is this is likely to go effectivly unreported so it hampers the case being made for more capacity, capacity which is clearly already required and was specified in the original design, then removed.
Overtaking in those light with low sun/dark in the shade situations is always precarious.
She nudged the Boris bikes
She nudged the Boris bikes handlebar initially, causing him to wobble
I’m surprised it doesn’t
I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often tbh.
Lots of risky overtakers on CSHs only get away with it by relying on others take avoiding action.
The female cyclist is trying
The female cyclist is trying a stupid overtake where there is not enough room (not enough space in front of the Boris Biker and is just sitting in the right hand side of the lane). The she knocks the Boris Biker causing his wobble and leading to the crash.
There is not a lot of point hurrying down this section as you always hit the red light at the bottom and the next section along Castle Bernard Street is nice and wide for overtaking.
Just a bit more common sense in when it’s a good time to overtake and when it’s better to wait would have saved all this.
thereverent wrote:
This with bells on
thereverent wrote:
There is normally no excuse for cyclists to cycle in the centre of a path, because all bicycle tires have a round profile tred, so any cambering slope is trivial for bicycles unlike for some pedestrians.
People who cycle in the UK should damned try to cycle on their Left side of a path, just like for the road, and only cycle to their Right to overtake or to avoid impediments or hazards on their Left, so the Boris Bike rider was either incompetent to ride a bicycle or just plain rude cycling in the centre, so was causing an obstruction which made an accident just a matter of time.
The female cyclist was also at fault for not using a bell or a loud horn to get the obstructive rider to move out of the way, and attempting an obviously unsafe overtake.
urbane wrote:
Just wow. Boris biker waiting for oncoming traffic to pass so he could overtake. He had rightly decided the path is not safely 3 bikes wide. Overtake ploughs through anyway.
Definitely does not seem wide
Definitely does not seem wide enough for passing between cyclists. Fellow cyclists also need to respect the ‘dynamic envelope’ that others require for safety.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I think Ptt3 has interprepreted duc888’s original post correctly. Duc 888 wrotesimply that “segregated cycle ways dont work” – that’s an absolute statement with no qualification.
Maybe they mean or think something different but we can only work with what we get on the page.
That was a crazy dangerous
That was a crazy dangerous overtake. If you’re in that much of a hurry, take the road.
He stayed upright! This is
He stayed upright! This is yet another proof that Boris Bikes rule!
Just an accident – people
Just an accident – people will learn to adjust their riding speeds, well that woman will I hope.
It was always going to be the problem with cycle lanes – in busy times people can’t ride at an all out pace. Quite frankly though, I’d take this drawback over competing with the cars for space any day – just slow down a bit.
If we were in the Netherlands
If we were in the Netherlands, where there are always large numbers of cyclists in a city, nobody would be trying to go as fast as the people in Blackfriars.
What we have is vehicular cycling mixing with continental city cycling.
Edgeley wrote:
No, what we have is vehicular cyclists being de facto forced to mix with continental city cycling.
We clearly need fast lanes
We clearly need fast lanes and slow lanes on a cycle superhighway.
I actually think the Boris biker is at fault here, he clearly doesn’t have the experience to be riding during rush-hour in a super highway.
richardint wrote:
Are you actually being serious or is my wit detector badly failing me today ? I pray it’s the latter….
richardint wrote:
He certainly had the hardware if not the experience. Wait till schoolkids start using it – oh, they’re not meant to?
richardint wrote:
At fault for being hit from behind by what we would call a punishment pass if a driver carried it out?
richardint wrote:
That is a totally confused take. The whole purpose of building the so called Cycle Superhighways was to give normal people the confidence to cycle. So to say the problem is that such people are using them is a post-hoc excuse for a poor design.
This is supposed to be a flagship superhighway demonstrator for the nation and what have we got? A totally inadequate far too narrow mess. If it was Dutch it would be twice that width for the traffic volumes and alll these things would not be an issue.
Unfortunately the segregationist lobby with their don’t bother about anything else so long as its segregated approach had their way and now the cyclists of London are forced to use inadequate facilities (try cycling Embankment on the road now if you don’t beleive they are forced)
Get used to it though folks because this is as good as segregation is going to get in the UK.
richardint wrote:
He was taking the space he needed to feel comfortable, he wasn’t weaving or braking. The would-be overtaker tried to ride through a gap that wasn’t there, with nowhere to go, and clipped his handlebar. Don’t treat commuting like a bunch sprint.
It is a lovely stretch of
It is a lovely stretch of highway, tbf, especially the new section, but it is just too busy to use during the rush hour, I’m on that bit at about 7:10 and it’s fine, any later and it’s vile, much better to use the road.
The old bit of CS3 after Tower Hill is deadly though, much narrower than this bit and squeezed tight between the pavement and the road, the CS generally littered with laughing gas canisters (which I used to generously think were discarded CO2 inflators).
flathunt wrote:
Me too i used to think it was mountain bikers taking bikes out of cars inflating the tyres and dumping them in my street (they ride in the forest opposite).
The issue unfortunately is
The issue unfortunately is that the design of the path expects primarily tidal flows hence the lack central lines.
The reality of this space indicates that this should probably be widened and some sort of physical barrier put in place to discourage this type of overtaking.
In other news, given the actions of that woman, she can probably be sued by the other people for her wreckless endagerment of their lives through ‘cycling furiously’.
Probably the path is too
Probably the path is too narrow to pass other riders safely
It was one of those accidents that was waiting to happen and it did happen. If we don’t watch out speed limits will be applied ……or are they already, I don’t know.
The superhighway is actually
The superhighway is actually pretty good but there are limitations, notably the ability to design out human stupidity.
Some people seem to have a problem with certain types of bikes overtaking/being ahead of them and the “must get in front” mentality creeps in. At busy times, there is a drafting effect and when you get people who aren’t used to riding in groups at speed and impatience, well, accidents will happen.
arfa wrote:
Might even be the same people who MGIF when they’re driving cars… (even cars with bikes on a roof rack, in my experience. YMMV.).
I rode on CS3 for the first
I rode on CS3 for the first time yesterday (don’t live in London) and was quite impressed with it. However it was around lunch time and the traffic levels were far lower. Main problem was the number of runners using it! I guess this doesn’t happen in rish hour?
The overtaking cyclist is clearly at fault. They are trying to squeeze through a gap that isn’t there, and being excessively impatient. The other cyclists aren’t even going that slowly.
The Boris biker was moving slowly into the gap to the left because it’s a bit tight, so can’t be blamed for the overtaking cyclist clipping their bar.
Funny how soon people seem to forget what it’s like to be on the receiving end of a close pass isn’t it?!
How long until this ends up
How long until this ends up on the Evening Standard site with all the spittle-flecked commentary that normally follows?
flathunt wrote:
Not long to go. Just spoke to them.
4ChordsNoNet wrote:
Ha, see you there then (Derek Dereksonsonson).
flathunt wrote:
Well it’s on the Daily Mail. Which is probably worse (‘now cyclists are endangering each other’ – as if the main problem till now was those terrifying cyclists endangering poor defenceless motorists).
Still, I look forward to them featuring similarly prominent coverage of every minor scrape that occurs between motor vehicles in this country. Mainly because it will mean there will be no room for anything else in the paper/on the site – which will probably make life easier for ethnic minorities and climate-scientists, among others.
Nope, I’d say teh Boris Bike
Nope, I’d say teh Boris Bike chap has to take a proportion of the blame there.
The woman was clearly in the wrong, however it was the Boris Biker’s positioning that left the woman with no where to go.
They’d both committed to an overtake that wasn’t really on a while back, and unfortuntely the woman was the one left with no where to go.
The boris biker could have moved in, but I suspect he was holding a central position so as not to be overtaken, as he was looking to move past the riders in front as soon as possible.
Well thats how I see it.
Morale of teh story, don’t overtake unless its safe to do so.. it wasn’t.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I’d have thought behind him until it was safe to overtake!
Will say though… the boris
Will say though… the boris biker, fair play in keeping that upright…
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
It’s a 23kg tank doing 20mph, you could have t-boned it with a bus and it’d barely wobble.
Low sunlight won”t have
Low sunlight won”t have helped, dark evenings can’t come quick enough for me now. Still doesn’t excuse the shit riding by various parties though.
Looks like sun glare to me.
Looks like sun glare to me. Charged on past half blind. Have a pair of Oakleys for sale if she’s interested
Those two way cycle lanes have little room for error. Never been on one but looks a bit hairy.
Classic story, a fast rider
Classic story, a fast rider and an absent minded do not mix well.
The Boris bike rider should have been more at the left, and she definitely shouldn’t overtake using an imaginary 3rd lane
cyclisto wrote:
Really?
Imagine you are on a road, cycling along minding your own business keeping out of the gutter when you get passed by a car so closely it causes you to wobble dangerously. When you remonstrate with the driver, their response is ‘ You should be further over to the left you Eedjit ‘
It’s not only drivers who need to watch out for vulnerable road users, we do too.
Overtaking is essential on
Overtaking is essential on cycle paths. Some people just cannot ride as fast as others, particuarly up hills. If there is no overtaking then everyone will be reduced to the pace of the slowest. For this reason there has to be overtaking lanes on all cycle paths. Motor vehicles on the otherhand can all travel at the speed limit so overtaking is almost unnecessary.
earth wrote:
Or, you wait until there is an opportunity to overtake safely, as cars are supposed to when they overtake cyclists, other cars, tractors, hgvs, fiestas full of clowns…
@ SuperPython59 &
@ SuperPython59 & Tommytrucker
Well I try to ride as close to the edge of the road pavement (given there are no parked cars and subsequently no door zone) and if there is a potentially dangerous drainage cover, I will pass it just a few cm away in order to avoid getting exposed to faster vehicular traffic.
All these years it works very nice for me, the “rightish” tactic of Boris rider seems not to have worked really well here.
Of course the Boris rider is not the first one I blame, if you pay attention I say that the Boris rider “should” have been more left whereas the woman “DEFINITELY shouldn’t” have overpassed. But because we are the most vulnerable users on the road we should take any possible action to prevent accidents.
cyclisto wrote:
I’m not going to comment on your riding style as you describe it because others here could dissect it much better than I can. But can’t you see that wobbly Boris-biker IS the most vulnerable road user here and that Sally Must-get-in-front was acting like a proper Audi. If you can’t see that, well I just throw my hands in the air in despair at you…
Is the sound off or don’t
Is the sound off or don’t Londoners EVER speak on the commute?
Morat wrote:
Talk? To strangers? Are you mad?
Morat wrote:
You’ve never been to London, have you?
Morat wrote:
Only when p!ssed.
Then everybody else pretends that they can’t hear you…
PaulBox wrote:
I don’t think that you have to have ‘had a little drink about an hour ago’… Every time I’ve been to that there London, the whole making small talk while you wait for the lift or the tube, or *anything*, just doesn’t happen: if you try, people steadfastly look over your head and generally avoid any eye- or even just social- contact; you might as well have a huge sign stuck to your head saying “Yokel, possibly mad, definitely not from here”. Many residents of that there London are, IMO, just bl**dy rude.
brooksby wrote:
Ugh :eye roll: … It’s the same with women, you give them a little feel or a pinch and they hit the roof. They have NO manners.
flathunt wrote:
You think that’s the same thing as I’m talking about? Really?
So they don’t do “social small talk” on your planet? I’m not talking about asking for random strangers’ telephone numbers, FFS, I’m talking about all those “bl**dy buses” “lovely weather, eh” type comments, the ones people used to make to random strangers while waiting for the bus/lift/etc.
flathunt wrote:
They were all speaking English until I walked in…
brooksby wrote:
In my experience, travelling north you can’t have random banter with fellow strangers until you get to about Derby. Sainsburys in Derby just of the A38 is a handy stop-off if you need respite after escaping from the grasp of the south east, motorway services further north are typically infected by the presence of Londoners desparate get out. I guess its possible that some of the rural communities further south are populated by humans but I haven’t found any eveidence of that so far.
Not sure if this is the minimum banter radius from london or the distance varies in other directions. Its possible that London and Paris have overlapping no banter zones.
P3t3 wrote:
I’m in Bristol, so I think it fades out as you move west…
brooksby wrote:
Much of the time if someone tries to talk to you they are going to ask for money – not so bad except its sometimes in a very aggressive way (and how many times have I heard the same story about having been arrested and released and now need to get home? That one often quickly segues into threats.)
Other times they think you look like a prospective customer for their drug dealing (hmmm…maybe it’s just be me that gets that one so frequently, possibly I should dress more smartly). Once in a blue moon its just some non-local genuinely asking for directions, which is a relief except I rarely know the pub or restaurant or whatever that they are looking for.
When you pass thousands of strangers on every journey, if everyone talked to everyone on the street nobody would ever manage to get where they were going.
brooksby wrote:
I think it’s a pretty basic observation that the higher the density of people, the less they speak to each other, and vice versa. That being said, I normally try to at least politely acknowledge someone’s effort to be sociable even if I’m not up for a long conversation, whether out in the countryside or somewhere that is full of people, unless they seem somehow threatening.
DaveE128 wrote:
everyones threatening in London, I think its a northern affliction, we dont want to talk to people down south
Hmmm, this is the reason I
Hmmm, this is the reason I dislike ‘cycle superhighways’. I don’t like to cycle slowly or casually. I would end up being frustrated riding at the lowest common denominator.
Still, I condemn her actions, you have to ride with consideration (whatever your speed). She didn’t anticipate on-coming traffic and paid the price, as did three others.
I used to see this riding on the canal into Islington. In the end I went back to the roads because they were faster and safety.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
You used to ride ON the canal into islington ? I’d like to have seeen that.. Did you use helium in your tyres to help with floatation ?
StuInNorway wrote:
They’ve made the canal itself ‘shared use’ now. That way it counts towards cycle-lane targets.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
“Cycle superhighways” – or “basic minimum standard cycle paths” aren’t for you; you obvs cycle anyway. They’re to make sure people who cycle slowly AND casually can cycle, too – and that’s a very unpleasant experience on London roads.
Regents Canal? Lovely route. Completely unsuitable for cycle commuting at any decent speed. It’s a footpath, and a busy, narrow one at that. Lovely for a pootle to the pub on a Sunday afternoon; completely useless for getting to work on time (unless you’re the kind of idiot who doesn’t give a hoot about pedestrians or anyone else).
The big problem with the Cycle Super Highways is that they’re so successful. To paraphrase, “No one cycles there anymore, it’s far too crowded”.
It’s exactly the same problem as on Tavistock Place (GO AND SIGN THE CONSULTATION, YOU HAVE A FEW HOURS): Bidirectional, segregated cycle paths are better than no segregated cycle paths. But one-directional, segregated cycle paths are WAY better than bidirectional ones.
The current setup is a huge step in the right direction, but it’s still a million miles from the finished product.
I am surprised the woman has
I am surprised the woman has not had more insults hurled at her here. Some kind of fear of being called sexist perhaps; her testosterone fueled lycra lady bully girl techniques lead to innocent others being injured. Yes the Boris bike looked a bit timid and central, but all the more reason not to squeeze past. Three people managed to avoid her, she still had time to back down, but didn’t. Its all on her. The lane itself looks wide enough, others before made safe passes. Making it wider would just encourage more of this. If this is too busy then just mix it on the road as is you right as a tax payer.
Leviathan wrote:
Have you been drinking?
Why are you bringing
Why are you bringing testosterone into this? You could equally blame her ‘oestrogenic’ fueled spacial awareness failure….
Several causal factors here
Several causal factors here
1) Boris bike rider not aware of what is happening behind (a very common issue with novice/distracted riders in high density cycle flow)
2) Overtaking rider (an idiot) attempts a totaly stupid overtaking move
3) fails to ensure the rider she is overtaking knows she is coming through
4) after managing to avoid wheel contact, she touches the other rider with her shoulder
5) he naturally reacts with surprise because of 1) and makes rapid change of course
6) having left no space for this she and the other rider collide and with no space she hits oncoming rider.
2 issues to deal with
All riders to be more aware of what is happening behind them
Fast riders to learn how to safely overtake
A V Lowe wrote:
I disagree with points 4-6. I think she actually rides into his handlebar. The rapid change of course is involuntary and classic of what happens with a sharply deflected handlebar. Watch the front wheel of the boris bike – it turns left and then rapidly back right. It moves left because the right end of the handlebar has been pushed sharply forward. This puts the front wheel out from underneath of the ride. He is now unbalanced and the only way he can stay upright is to steer the front wheel sharply back right so it is under his centre of mass. It is an involuntary reaction that is a result of having learned to ride a bike.
Once the handlbar is knocked it is unavoidable that he will ride into her, and do it hard. The only way this could have been avoided would be if he didn’t have his hands on the handlebar, in which case his body would have fallen into the overtaking cyclist.
I really do wonder whether this lady drives an Audi! 😉 She must have been in an almight hurry, and we know how well that mixes with any kind of road traffic.. :-/
A V Lowe wrote:
1 causal factor: The lane is too narrow to be safe for bidirectional bike traffic at this volume.
A bit surprised by some of
A bit surprised by some of the comments here. In any overtaking scenario, regardless of the vehicle concerned, it is the responsibility of the person overtaking to ensure that it is done with the safety of everyone in mind and only to do so when it is safe. There is no more right to cycle at your preferred speed than there is to drive at your preferred speed when there is a slower vehicle in front of you. If we as people who use bicycles don’t get that, there’s not a lot of hope for road safety.
arfa wrote:
Well exactly. If we’d just witnessed this scenario with cars I’m sure we’d all be agreeing she’s a maniac and should have her licence taken away.
The beauty about cycle lanes
The beauty about cycle lanes is that you can pass on either side and don’t even have to ride to the left hand side. She should have cut through and passed to the BBer’s left….
Are there rules (me being a country boy)?
psling wrote:
I don’t know about rules, but if I am overtaking anyone I’ll normally call “on your right” to let them know; and I always pass on the right, maybe I am too old, but it seems the right thing to do.
psling wrote:
I wouldnt’ advise overtaking on the left – regardless of legality, people won’t be expecting it and it’s more likely to cause a crash.
I’m considering making an
I’m considering making an analysis video of this incident with even slower footage from the handlbar mounted camera, I can go to half the speed that was uploaded.
It is clear when you watch it closely that the overtaker (the female cyclist) clipped the handlebars of the Boris Biker causing him to wobble and knock her off balance enough to throw her off her bike into the path of the poor chap coming the other way.
I really can’t comprehend how any cyclist on here can lay any criticism at the Boris Biker. Had he been on his own bike I genuinely believe that very few would place any blame on him for this.
I’ve checked my ride for this incident and I was doing 14-15 mph along here. I’d say that Boris and Miss were probably doing 18-20 maybe? Empty you can do 20-25 with ease, and some will hit 30 or more, but with that amount of traffic in the lanes you have to keep the speed down, but more important don’t overtake unless it is safe to do so.
It was clearly a stuff-up but
It was clearly a stuff-up but the positive thing is on a segregated cycle lane a stuff-up means you stack it and maybe take out a couple of other riders, on the road you could go under a bus.
In regards to the London commuter rules it seems to be:
1. No talking/eye contact
2. Don’t acknowledge that it’s a race (but it is)
Jackson wrote:
The guy who went into the womans (crashed) bike on the ground ended up in the highway. FTA
Only positive is that he was fortunate that there wasn’t traffic on it at the time.
Surely the banter index
Surely the banter index varies with terrain? Urban is less but up the rural hills a lot more…
That said the horror of the lone silent rider ignoring all attempts at a cheery morning is infecting my local (midlands) rides more and more.
Don’t really mind until its when they ride past!!!…. RACE!
Some people are just plain
Some people are just plain stupid.
We get stupid riding on the local shared path where a cyclist has an obstruction on their side of the path so they have to change sides and often into the path of oncoming traffic forcing the otherwise unobstructed cyclist to brake, swerve or take some form of action.
I see this behaviour when driving too.
Didn’t some woman berate Richard Hammond of Top Gear fame for riding through that there London village too slowly?
Lovely place and lovely people.
Definitely the passing
Definitely the passing cyclist at fault here. SMIDSY shouldn’t be acceptable for drivers, and definitely not for cyclists, either. Accidents do happen, but this was clearly a case of impatient dangerous overtaking. It didn’t look to me like the Boris-biker was intending to do anything other than to ride in his lane. Sure it’s good to stay well left, but regardless, it’s up to the person who wants to pass to ensure it’s completely safe for them to do so.
I’ve seen this before on CS3 (thankfully, all those affected managed to take evasive action). Heading east past Tower Bridge turn-off it gets even worse, like a Mad Max movie. Much narrower and very dogdy surface, cars in and out of side streets and pedestrians. I’ve nearly been taken out by a stupid boof-head in a hoodie hooning along with a boom box blaring careening past from behind whilst a bunch of us had stopped for cars. Clipped the side of me, but I managed to stay upright and fortunately for him, he did not get taken out by a car.
So I now I have made the choice to use the road and go down through the Greenwich tunnel rather than deal with that CS3 looniness.
The cycle lane is big enough.
The cycle lane is big enough.
The Santander cyclist is in the middle, leaving no room to overtake.
The female cyclists reason for getting where she’s going is obviously more important than anybody else’s.
Everybody else should have stopped to allow her a clear path.
Stupid and dangerous cyclist.
gawl07 wrote:
Its nowhere near big enough unless your idea of commuter cycling is that everyone is forced to go at the speed of the slowest. Of course it wasn’t a problem before the segregated path was built. We could all go at our own speed and overtake as necessary but that freedom is now in the past on that bit of road.
gawl07 wrote:
No, it is not. That narrow cycle lane carries more people at rush hour than the rest of the road; it should be twice as wide(or the same width on either side of the road)
That lane is pretty narrow;
That lane is pretty narrow; norrower than what we see in the States. In such an urban setting as London, wouldn’t striping down the middle help? It still might be crazy in such a squeeze but maybe it would tamp down the anarchy.
If this path is intended for
If this path is intended for two way use, as it would seem, then it is in breach of the national guidelines which call for 3m width absolute minimum.
Funnelled like rats in a
Funnelled like rats in a sewer, while the acres of empty space now de facto if not de jure dedicated to motor traffic stand empty alongside. And yet only a minority of comments here even question the width of the path for the cycle traffic it is intended to serve: most criticise the behaviour of one or other of the cyclists.
There is no way a lane that wide should be two-way. Riding it safely will slow many cyclists considerably. Increased cycle commuting times make cycling less attractive not more.
The Netherland’s good cycle safety record is in part due to the fact that Dutch cyclists ride more slowly on average that in other countries, often on similarly narrow lanes. Now you know why!
The onus is of course on the overtaking rider to do so safely, and plainly that wasn’t a good moment. Hitting the brakes, and letting the peloton take the strain would obviously have been preferable. I note that the overtaking rider was wearing a helmet, which probably increased her willingness to take risks.
But it wouldn’t have happened if they’d all been on the road.
No-one’s discussed wind direction as a factor in the crash, but I suspect they were all ebulliant in a tailwind, which increased their speed, though not their judgment.