Supermarket operator Sainsbury’s has come under heavy criticism on social media after it tweeted a response to a video showing one of its delivery lorries making an extremely close pass on a cyclist in which it said the driver had done nothing wrong since he had remained in his own lane.
The footage, taken in London on a camera mounted on the bike’s handlebars, shows the rider entering a non-mandatory cycle lane. As the cyclist reaches a pinch point created by a traffic island, the driver of the Sainsbury’s lorry overtakes, leaving inches to spare.
The video was originally uploaded to YouTube on 29 March by user CBL. It gained wider attention yesterday when a link to it was tweeted from the account @HackneyCyclist and caught the eye of Chris Boardman.
I don’t normally retweet this stuff but watch the video and then I’ll show you @sainsburys response. https://t.co/yM5NTYTdbv
— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) April 5, 2017
The British Cycling policy advisor, whose mother Carol was killed last year when she was hit by a pick-up truck while riding through a roundabout, then tweeted his reaction to Sainsbury’s initial response on Twitter.
THATS A HUMAN BEING @sainsburys how about if it was one of your kids, would you feel the same? https://t.co/miZWZ3rUHj
— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) April 5, 2017
Besides condemning the driver’s actions, Twitter users replying to Boardman’s tweet described Sainsbury’s response as “disgraceful” and “shameful.” Sainsbury’s has this morning said that the issue is being investigated.
@GlasgowCT Sorry to those who felt this issue wasn’t being taken seriously. Safety is taken seriously and we’re investigating. Ryan
— Sainsbury’s (@sainsburys) April 6, 2017
Discussion of the incident on Twitter also focused on the inadequacy of the cycling infrastructure, with this tweet from James Hayden reflecting a view shared by many.
@Chris_Boardman @sainsburys These cycles lanes are worse than none. Encourage and validate close passing. There use must be stopped. I just ride on the dotted line.
— James Hayden (@JamesMarkHayden) April 5, 2017
In 2015, Boardman teamed up with cycling journalist and author Carlton Reid and driving instructor Blaine Walsh for a video showing motorists how to pass cyclists safety, in line with instructions given in the Highway Code.
> Video: Chris Boardman demonstrating safe overtaking of cyclists
The previous year, at an event attended by then Mayor of London Boris Johnson, Sainsbury’s unveiled a new lorry to deliver to its outlets in London that it said incorporated features to improve cyclist safety.
> Sainsbury’s unveils safer lorry as Boris Johnson launches consultation
But in June last year, BBC Radio 2 presenter Jeremy Vine, who commutes by bike in London, said that large signs on the back of Sainsbury’s lorries warning cyclists not to pass the vehicle on the inside were responsible for “increasing general fear of cycling.”
> Sainsbury’s truck cyclist warning increases “fear of cycling”
It won’t have gone unnoticed that in this case, it was the actions of the driver, not the cyclist, that led to the rider being put in danger.
51 thoughts on ““That’s a human being” – Chris Boardman slams Sainsbury’s response to close pass video”
A fine demonstration of why
A fine demonstration of why cycle lanes made only of paint are a bad thing for cyclists.
dodpeters wrote:
Certainly when they are that narrow. A painted cycle lane that narrow is much worse than just pointless. It’s downright irresponsible. I’m inclined to be more angry at whoever put that lane in than I am at the lorry driver or even Sainsburys. Not least because they probably aren’t getting any ‘heat’ at all, unlike the lorry driver or Sainsbury’s PR department.
Can’t watch the video due to
Can’t watch the video due to office restrictions but the still on the front page tells me all I need to know. That is way too close.
Not victim blaming but even if I was using the marked cycle lane (which is way too narrow), I would make sure I moved out into primary position if there was a traffic island coming up.
Crap infrastructure – inexperienced cyclists use it even though it puts them in danger, and many drivers take the view expressed by original Sainsburys tweet – they think if they stay right of the line its okay.
CygnusX1 wrote:
agreed – I have belts wider than this “cycle lane” – it encourages him to ride in the gutter
Doesn’t make it right or
Doesn’t make it right or acceptable obviously but the reality is this happens all the time.
“Sorry to those who felt this
“Sorry to those who felt this issue wasn’t being taken seriously. “
Weasel words … It’s your fault for feeling this…
C’mon Sainsbury’s. ‘Fess up!
It’s a remarkably calm
It’s a remarkably calm reaction from the cyclist, to his credit. The driving is awful – terrible overtake, which gets the lorry ahead for about 20 seconds, before it has to stop in a queue. The driver should be severely disciplined or sacked.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
To add to that, on the reverse camera view you can see the lorry actually pulling closer towards the cyclist coming up to the point where he passes by.. But as many say this is unfortunately not surprising and happens all the time, and they will all try to get away with it if they can.
This sums up the whole
This sums up the whole problem of close passing. Too many drivers think that so long as they don’t actually hit whatever it is they are trying to pass, then it is a OK. Most of them care more about not damaging their own vehicle than not scaring the crap out of the cyclist.
If I had been on that road, I would have been just to the left of the white line, and that truck would have scared the living daylights out of me. I’d have punched the side of it and been screaming my head off.
I mostly read road.cc to make
I mostly read road.cc to make fun of British bike lanes 🙂
The times I’ve had this
The times I’ve had this happen to me!
It sends a chill down your spine, before the anger that someone gives so little of a sh&t about someones life that they would do this!
I also had a builder do this to me in his van, who then pulled over ahead of me to ‘have a go’ at me because I had shouted at him when he did his close pass! 🙁
Cygnus,
Cygnus,
The problem with adopting primary is you could argue that if the lorry was coming up behind at a speed relatively quicker than yours, you would be obliged to check the lane you’re moving into. A shoulder check could make you move out slightly (further endangering you) and would result in deciding it wasn’t safe. What do you do then? Stay where you are with the same outcome or pull in on the left? I don’t fancy having to pull in every time there’s a traffic island.
One option is to ignore the cycle lane, but we all know we then put our lives at risk with a punishment pass.
One last thing, I wouldn’t particularly hammer Sainsbury’s, this is one bad driver and one ill informed person sitting monitoring social media…
alansmurphy wrote:
There is only one lane there, so no need to move if you’re already taking the lane by not riding in the gutter to begin with.
alansmurphy wrote:
Nope, they employ both and are responsible for their actions, hammer away, it’s the only way to change this dangerous culture.
alansmurphy wrote:
Perhaps a little easier for me , since as a recumbent rider I have to use a (glasses-mounted) mirror for a decent view of the road behind. But if you plan ahead enough taking the lane isn’t an issue, and funnily enough drivers generally seem not to get arsy (tho there’s the occasional dick that insists on a late overtake).
But occasionally I forget to adopt primary, usually when there’s not much traffic around, and still get some muppet overtaking through pinch points.
alansmurphy wrote:
Agree – it might not always be safe to transition to primary, although with planning ahead and several shoulder checks to spot the safe gap this should be mitigated.
Personally, from what I can see in the picture I would go with your last option and ride secondary in the main traffic lane so that to pass drivers would be forced to cross the median line – this should prevent the attempt to overtake next to a traffic island (although I would still attempt to move out further to make it clear to motons behind that the pass is DEFINITELY not on). Yes, this approach could “invite” a punishment pass but at least then you have the space to your left as a refuge.
However defensively (or not) we ride we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
Ultimately, drivers need to take responsibity to pass only when its safe and there is space to do so, and hang back and give room when its not.
[shudders]
[shudders]
Whoever installed that pathetic cycle lane also has a case to answer.
But you cannot police every
But you cannot police every member of staff every minute of every day – some cashier somewhere may call someone a rude name, someone in the warehouse may hold sexist views.
I’m not saying it is not wise to raise it, hopefully it will help. All I am saying is that one of several million drivers behaved like an idiot on a given journey. The video was posted and some ‘marketing guy’ monitoring social media tried to be a bit defensive of the driverith a view that millions of motorists share. All this is likely to have happened before Mr J Sainsbury had a chance to authorise their demise.
alansmurphy wrote:
What a crock of shit. If Mr Sainsbury gets wind of this then he immediately rolls out a memo to all of the drivers to sort out their behaviour or get a new job. Done. What a ridiculous notion that you can’t expect your employees not to buzz cyclists unless you’re sitting in the cab with them.
alansmurphy wrote:
If they’ve got a great big “Sainsbury’s” marked on the side of the truck, then you most certainly can complain to them about one of their drivers. They don’t have to do much policing – just sack drivers that get complaints from the public. If they use a sub-contractor, then just make it perfectly clear that they’ll use a different sub-contractor if they’re going to sully the brand.
Also, I think you’ll find that they have a small fleet of lawyers ready to pounce on anyone violating their brand/trademark, so even if they can’t do 24 hour a day monitoring, they can certainly hang someone out to dry when they’ve been caught on video.
alansmurphy wrote:
But you can judge higher management on how they are now acting. They could for example have said what you have above – though perhaps without the excusatory tone 🙂 – and then made it clear what steps they have previously taken and will now take to prevent similar events in the future.
If nothing else, I think any “marketing guy” should appreciate the significance of Chris Boardman passing comment and drawing attention to your employer’s brand like this, and pass the issue along to higher ups.
So the impression people are left with is that overall, Sainsburys doesn’t actually care that much, because at best it has fairly rubbish systems in place to deal with reports of bad driving by drivers of lorries carrying its logo.
Edit: and as others have said, rubbish infrastructure again plays a huge role in this, but still no excuse for the driver.
alansmurphy wrote:
I’d happily accept their cashiers calling me any names if their vans would stop close passing me. It may just be time to start shopping elsewhere.
The pointlessness of this
The pointlessness of this risky manouver is what strikes me the most! Predictably a mere few seconds later the truck is stationary in a line of traffic again and the rider carries on past him… which anybody who has ever driven or ridden in a town in Britain knows is 99% certain to happen. This is a professional driver, driving in London, putting someone at great risk despinte it being obvious that within a minute the situation will have been reversed.
I had this once with a minibus, the guy came past me in a similar way then stopped at the lights:
Me: “its really firghtening when you come past that close”
Him: “We are trained not to leave the lane”
… what am I supposed to do with that…?
P3t3 wrote:
Had similar just last week with a single decker bus, which then stopped 20metres up the road in traffic queue & then a tipper truck this morning who then jumped a red light to keep going 🙁
Worst thing just watching the video first time you know exactly when the overtake will occur, as you spot the road narrows at the pedestrian island and think yep that’s where Mr truck driver will pick his moment, sigh.
I would wager that over half
I would wager that over half of the driving public believe that a cycle lane is like another lane of the highway and so defines the amount of space that’s necessary to give to the person in that lane (in the same way they would stay in lane when passing another car if it was in the inside lane).
There is no possible use for a cycle lane like the one in the video; if it was added to keep the cars a safe distance from the cyclists then it has to be wide enough to do that, which means the cycle lane needs to be 2.25m wide according to the close pass initiative. If it was added just as inside filter lane for the exclusive use of cyclists in stationery traffic (which obviously it wasn’t) then the Highway Code needs to reflect that, as does driving tuition.
The problem is duofold, those lanes are unsafe by design and the highway code contradicts itself between its advice on passing cyclists and the use of carriageway lanes. I’m amazed nobody has sued the government yet following a cycle lane collision.
Edit: I wonder if driver behaviour would change if the dashed line of the cycle lane *was* 2.25m from the kerb, would it feel more like the cyclist had priority?
Edit: I wonder if driver behaviour would change if the dashed line of the cycle lane *was* 2.25m from the kerb, would it feel more like the cyclist had priority?
That is what they do on minor roads in the Netherlands. Two large dotted line cycle lanes, and one car lane in the middle, signifying priority to bikes, and making car drivers consciously have to cross a dotted line to overtake or pass an oncoming car. We don’t have the nerve to do that.
Edgeley wrote:
Quite a few places do (Corbridge in Northumberland has one). Obviously gets hatred initially but evetually a large amount of people end up supporting them (once they realise how they are supposed to be used and arnt any slower for cars than a normal road where you would wait behind a cyclist to overtake).
Well, look on the bright side
Well, look on the bright side. Unlike in quite a lot of places, the cycle lane isn’t made smaller where it passes the traffic island, in order to retain the size of the “not cycle lane”.
The driving was appalling. The excuse as bad. And the infrastructure encourages it.
How f-ing close was that
How f-ing close was that lorry to the bike’s handlebars??? Makes me wince, just watching that video.
So, if that cyclist had caught up on one of the drain covers and come off and been squashed, or if they had even just wobbled ever so slightly and been sucked under the wheels, would Sainsburys have said that it was the cyclist’s fault because they should have stayed in their own lane?
Thoroughly disgusting and ignorant response.
What a terrible pass. As I
What a terrible pass. As I approach a pinch point, I look behind, then take up a primary position – sometimes indicating as I do. This tends to make the point that the vehicle following needs to hang back. I also never cycle within those cycle lanes – on the line as a minimum. London is full of that kind of horrible pinch point, and drivers willing to make a dangerous manoeuvre.
dassie wrote:
Me too. Had a “discussion ” with a motorist who complained that I’d taken primary through a chicane. I said it didn’t matter where I rode through there, because there was no way his SUV was fitting through at the same time as me.
Absolutely, I’m not saying it
Absolutely, I’m not saying it’s right (and calm down Jackson, you’ll do yourself a mischief) and I think a big company should come out and say that it is not acceptable after the event. I’m talking about the initial action (one idiot) and the early reaction (one ill informed social media marketing bod). It doesn’t make Sainsbury’s disgusting…
It would be great if Sainsbury’s could write something in the drivers contracts to say that any driver found doing such a thing will be put on bog cleaning duty for a week and paid the appropriate wage.
On a tangent, these delivery vans they have for home shopping are now some of the worst menaces out there…
Seems to be another example
Seems to be another example of the cycling ‘infrastructure’ being worse than not having anything there at all, at least with no lane the cyclist would probably ride further out and the lorry driver would (hopefully) move out to pass properly.
On a more satisfying note, almost every night when I cycle back from work, a car will always try to overtake me in the same section (20mph zone outside two schools none the less) just before the traffic island. Last night, when the day’s impatient driver left it really late to pass they ended up clipping the bollard in the middle of the island where they misjudged it, and just coming round the corner was a police car. to say the smile on my face was difficult to wipe off would be an understatement. (I’m sure there’ll be more close passes tonight or tomorrow but at least that was one time it’s served them right)
2 problems led to this (apart
2 problems led to this (apart from the obvious driver issues)
First that cycle lane looks to be narrower than many hybrid or mountain bike handlebars, no question that is unfit for purpose.
Secondly, one of the reasons drivers do this i HGVs today, is the new digital tachograph replacements that store the info on a digital system include WAY moreinfo than before. Most supermarket haulage is sub contracted out, and the major haulage contractors use the tacho info for working our the drivers bonuses etc. A driver who keeps a steady 55mph may use less fuel and induce less wear on the truck, but that attempt to keep a steady speed, not lose momentum, also means in situations like this his wallet might be telling him notto slow down, just keep it steady. It’s the same as why at large roundabouts over motorway junctions particularly you will see som many trucks trying to coast it to avoid stopping at the lights, and in some cases simply not stopping and as in one recently case, turning a cyclist into a statistic. The Tacho reports only “efficencies” of the driving, not any external factors. I’m all for weeding out bad drivers my using the tacho info to get rid of the 40 ton boy racers, but when it starts being a financial issue for drivers to wait and drive safely, it’s gone too far.
StuInNorway wrote:
Also have to question whether Sainsbury’s have performance targets for delivery times. If they do they are encouraging their drivers to take risks and should be culpable for any accidents.
Their delivery drivers (like all other supermarkets) are also monumentally crap at parking their vans on pavements
Strangely enough, I was
Strangely enough, I was thinking about this, the other day…
Throughout driving lessons, learners are told to give enough room, when passing parked cars, in case a door opens – so why isn’t the same logic applied to passing cyclists?
I would certainly like to see more attention being paid to the subject by instructors, whether for basic car driving or more ‘advanced’ driving, such as LGV and PSV.
Incidentally, my partner and I often mention the motorcyclists’ head shake, given when a car driver does something stupid or dangerous – a couple of weeks ago, I had to do the same to a motorcyclist, who had appeared on my right, whilst signalling to turn left into the local council depot!
Up until that point, I’d always considered them to be on the same ‘side’ as cyclists, being at risk from the stupidity of others, but I could change my mind…
PaulCee52 wrote:
Instructors can only teach you what is there practically so if you are learning in an area with no cyclists or the extremely rare cyclist then you don’t learn practically to give cyclists sufficient room. All drivers are taught the theory of giving cyclist lots of room but most people can’t even visualise stopping distances, so they have little chance in visualising how much room to give a cyclist.
For example in my case I learnt in a basketcase area where pedestrians would randomly decide to cross the road in front of you, and other car drivers would do dangerous things after which you wouldn’t want to get in an argument with some of them, you learnt how to give space to other road users and how to wait. There were the rare cyclist because anyone trying to cycle those roads would end up dead.
On the other hand one of my mate’s learnt in university town with loads of cyclists. As a result before every single manouvre and during each manouvre she knew she had to keep looking round for cyclists, to give room and to wait.
Bluebug wrote:
I agree upto a point, which is whenever Im out on the road and Ive encountered a learner driver, whilst you dont get punish passed, Ive never been overtaken by one and thought yep that instructor is teaching them how to deal with a cyclist properly. In fact I often wonder what the instructor is teaching them because it doesnt feel like its the highway code bits around cycling and priorities.
Unfortunately I can see why
Unfortunately I can see why people think if they don’t cross the line on a cycle lane it must be okay! so if the police suggest .75m is the riding distance from the road edge and the a driver should allow 1.5m it would make sense for all cycle lanes to be 2.25m wide?
It would appear that this
It would appear that this cycle farcility is narrower than any acceptable guidance defines, and actually increases danger to cyclists, so why is it there? Who proposed it? Who allowed it? Who signed off on the risk assessment? Why do any of them still have job?
Get on to the council responsible for this road, find out the answers and really hassle the councillors. Pointing out that they could be sued by a cyclist injured by their crap infrastructure might be useful.
burtthebike wrote:
nothing about this story is good, except those words.
burtthebike wrote:
Anecdata alert: there’s a broken-line cycle lane on the approach to the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol. At its very widest it’s about the same as the one in the video (ie. Handlebars). It gets narrower. At its end point it’s barely wider than the double yellow lines. On a single traffic lane with a centre island so traffic literally can’t overtake properly.
hg v driver gambles with
hg v driver gambles with cyclists lift at 10 seconds, road widens and buss lane starts at 25 seconds.
what we see here is a driver who has so little regard for human life, that passing 15 seconds earlier on the way to join a queue of slowing/stationary cars is more important than somw children being orphaned.
And comments from society at large that agree.
Don’t assume that all cycle
Don’t assume that all cycle lanes are actually conceived with the safety of cyclists in mind.
Cycle lanes like the one in this story, ie. non-mandatory/broken line, aren’t necessarily put in for the benefit of cyclists.
Silly-ass Liberal councillor round my way gets them put in becasue he says ‘They are a useful tool to help reduce traffic speed’. This same person doesn’t give a wotsit about cyclists.
That’s a dreadful overtake
That’s a dreadful overtake and totally unnecessary too. Sainsbury should be giving the driver an official warning and making the person undergo compulsory cycle training.
From my own experience, a lot of poor overtakes are unnecessary. Drivers who can’t see a stretch of road narrowing ahead or appreciate that there’s an oncoming vehicle also tend to be unable to comprehend that the reason they are making slow progress is due to the number of vehicles in front of them that’ll inevitably be queuing at junctions, and not the bicycle they’re trying to pass.
I had a run in with a
I had a run in with a sainsburys truck last year, he was driving along in right by the curb in a cycle lane, while waiting in traffic. I rode around the right hand side and mentioned to the driver he was blocking the cycle lane and he told me to “F*** off”.
Sainsburys reviewed the video I sent them but said that they couldn’t identify the driver so wouldn’t take any action.
pruaga wrote:
interesting – I also had an altercation with a sanisbury’s driver, took down the registration and time of the incident, and also was told that they could not identify the driver!
it’s also a broken white line
it’s also a broken white line not solid, so in fact drivers can actually use that road space. which means cyclists who think they’re safe in a cycle lane, while filtering in that lane, could in fact be in a lorries blindspot and the driver can legally move across if he sees nothing in his mirrors. (see video the other day)
A pointless paint job, ignore them and ride off the kerb and more so when there is traffic furniture, if there is no oncoming traffic, then they can overtake.
Cycle lanes have brought about the conflicts we have now and they should be done any with!
I just read the top comments
I just read the top comments at the Sun – I dont know why , but cycle “bigotry” seems to be alive and well there. Even comments from truck drivers of 19 years not seeing any problem …
there seem to be 3 arguments:
1. “He was in his own lane” – bad infrastructure justifies careless driving argument..
2.” Where do you want the lorry to go?” as if the lorry driver was incapable of seeing the road narrow ahead and slowing down considering their relative speed looked about 5mph different.
3. Road Tax/Cyclists and all the general arguments against their presence on the road. – this could easily be quashed with a campaign to educate people about how the roads are funded. Maybe we should crowdsource some adverts if the government wont do it. It seems to be the one that they get emotional about – as if cyclists are stealing money right out of their wallets..
I’ve found the location:
I’ve found the location:
https://goo.gl/maps/R8fdJn81dau
A20 Eltham Road, SE12, Greenwich Borough Council, London. It’s a red route, so TFL has some responsibility for it, but I don’t know if that includes the design of the cycle infarcestructure.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/what-we-do/roads
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/red-route-south-area-map.pdf
Anyone know which is the responsible authority?
I suggest that people might consider contacting them and highlighting the consequences of their lethally flawed cycling infrastructure? (As well as blasting Sainsbury’s on social media – I don’t want to hear they are “taking it very seriously”. I want to hear what concrete actions they are taking to ensure this doesn’t happen again before someone gets killed.)
DaveE128 wrote:
Especially bad when you look at the nearby Rochester way, which shows what can be done.
I think this is under Greenwich council control: https://goo.gl/maps/Fyu5nfaNTmQ2
The cycle path was widened with solid white line and green surfacing being introduced a couple of years back and recently poles and armadillos have been placed along the length. So much better