Today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series perhaps isn’t the worst case of driving we’ve featured – but it is one of those things that for urban cyclists add up and make commuting an unpleasant experience at times.
It was filmed last Monday morning on Jamaica Road in Southwark road.cc reader Cycle London and shows a van driver crossing a solid white line into a bus lane where there are cyclists riding and then when one shakes their head in exasperation, they get a beep of the horn for their trouble.
Cycle London, who points out in the description of the video on YouTube that there are three separate offences committed, told us: “What bothered me as much as the forcing his way into a group of cyclists, was the petulant sound of his horn.”’
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc">info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
101 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 168: Van driver crosses solid line, forcing cyclists out of way”
Looking for conflict there me
Looking for conflict there me thinks.
Clearly avoidable.
Van indicating for some time before turn.
atgni wrote:
So, do you think that indicating gives you priority?
hawkinspeter wrote:
So, do you think that indicating gives you priority?— atgni
Nope.
Share the road.
Slow for 2 seconds and don’t go up the inside of something indicating.
atgni wrote:
So, do you think that indicating gives you priority?
— hawkinspeter Nope. Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don’t go up the inside of something indicating.— atgni
I agree with “share the road”. I interpret that as meaning don’t pull into a lane when it isn’t clear never mind how long you’ve been indicating.
Why couldn’t the van have slowed for 2 seconds to have made a safe maneouvre? Safety is more important than courtesy.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think the van was slowing into a gap.
We don’t see the rear veiw.
atgni wrote:
Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.
Van indicating for some time before turn – I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What’s your point?
hirsute wrote:
Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.
Van indicating for some time before turn – I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What’s your point?— atgni
Share the road.
Slow for 2 seconds and don’t go up the inside of something indicating.
atgni wrote:
Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.
Van indicating for some time before turn – I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What’s your point?
— hirsute Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don’t go up the inside of something indicating.— atgniWhat you are saying then is that there is no point in any cycle lane, as it is not permissible to underake any cars who are queuing in their lane. This would extend to normal roads where there are 2 lanes and so the road user in lane 1 should not ‘undertake’ any user in lane 2.
Do you know what a mandatory cycle lane is?
hirsute wrote:
No. And they weren’t queing in this case.
And yes.
I didn’t say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.
atgni wrote:
Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.
Van indicating for some time before turn – I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What’s your point?
— hirsute Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don’t go up the inside of something indicating.— atgniWhat you are saying then is that there is no point in any cycle lane, as it is not permissible to underake any cars who are queuing in their lane. This would extend to normal roads where there are 2 lanes and so the road user in lane 1 should not ‘undertake’ any user in lane 2.
Do you know what a mandatory cycle lane is?
— hirsute No. And they weren’t queing in this case. And yes. I didn’t say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.— atgni
The van driver could also have easily avoided the conflict, and since the van driver was the one not just travelling in a straight line then I’d suggest that the onus falls upon them.
brooksby wrote:
No. And they weren’t queing in this case. And yes. I didn’t say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.— hirsute
The van driver could also have easily avoided the conflict, and since the van driver was the one not just travelling in a straight line then I’d suggest that the onus falls upon them.— atgni
Agreed.
brooksby wrote:
No. And they weren’t queing in this case. And yes. I didn’t say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.— hirsute
The van driver could also have easily avoided the conflict, and since the van driver was the one not just travelling in a straight line then I’d suggest that the onus falls upon them.— atgni
.. is the right answer.
Van driver changing lane – van driver’s responsibility to see that the space into which he drives, is clear.
Nothing else to say, no more debate, move along.
atgni wrote:
— atgni No. And they weren’t queing in this case. And yes. I didn’t say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.— hirsuteI see you believe might is right and it’s ok to use a mandatory cycle lane if the alternative is to wait a few seconds, so little left to discuss.
hirsute wrote:
Still no to both your assertions.
Try reading what I write maybe.
atgni wrote:
— atgni No. And they weren’t queing in this case. And yes. I didn’t say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.— hirsuteI see you believe might is right and it’s ok to use a mandatory cycle lane if the alternative is to wait a few seconds, so little left to discuss.
— atgni Still no to both your assertions. Try reading what I write maybe.— hirsute
You realise the van driver instigated the confrontation by not obeying the rules of the road and illegally entering the bus lane while also putting a vulnerable road user in danger?
Maybe, when people are telling you that what you’re saying is clearly wrong, you should review what you are communicating rather than tell people to read it again?
There is a good chance this van is one of those I saw that had concertina’d between other vans and lorries near Oval this week.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Still no to both your assertions. Try reading what I write maybe.— atgni
You realise the van driver instigated the confrontation by not obeying the rules of the road and illegally entering the bus lane while also putting a vulnerable road user in danger?
Maybe, when people are telling you that what you’re saying is clearly wrong, you should review what you are communicating rather than tell people to read it again?— hirsute
Yes and yes. And the cyclist decided to plough on saving no time as getting stuck behind the moped immediately afterwards.
Hirsute simply keeps claiming I think or say things that I don’t or haven’t. Hence it would be handy if they read what I wrote rather than making things up. See very first comment.
atgni wrote:
Perhaps you should read what you wrote.
You said “share the road”. In order to do this, the driver would have to enter the mandatory lane which they shouldn’t do.
Your very first comment was “Van indicating for some time before turn” which you have never explained what relevance that has, then you go on to make an erroneous claim about “going up the inside”.
You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down.
Seems you don’t like people pointing the implications or contradictions of your comments.
hirsute wrote:
Where did I say this? “You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down.”
I’ll give you a hint – I didn’t. That’s where this reading thing comes in.
hirsute wrote:
Just to clarify your mis statements.
It’s a bus lane not a mandatory cycle lane.
Going up the inside is not erroneous, the cyclist was behind the not queing van or you would not have seen the indicators before they got up the inside.
Incident entirely avoidable by regardless of whether the van crossed the lane marking just by the cyclist observing the indicators. Better if the van hadn’t crossed the lane marking but avoidable either way.
Most of this comments section avoidable by you reading what I wrote or by me remembering I was reading a website where some people blindly believe cyclists can do no wrong.
I’m not in your gang obviously. Enjoy your riding.
atgni wrote:
Perhaps you should read what you wrote.
You said “share the road”. In order to do this, the driver would have to enter the mandatory lane which they shouldn’t do.
Your very first comment was “Van indicating for some time before turn” which you have never explained what relevance that has, then you go on to make an erroneous claim about “going up the inside”.
You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down.
Seems you don’t like people pointing the implications or contradictions of your comments.
— hirsute Just to clarify your mis statements. It’s a bus lane not a mandatory cycle lane. Going up the inside is not erroneous, the cyclist was behind the not queing van or you would not have seen the indicators before they got up the inside. Incident entirely avoidable by regardless of whether the van crossed the lane marking just by the cyclist observing the indicators. Better if the van hadn’t crossed the lane marking but avoidable either way. Most of this comments section avoidable by you reading what I wrote or by me remembering I was reading a website where some people blindly believe cyclists can do no wrong. I’m not in your gang obviously. Enjoy your riding.— atgniDunning-Kruger Effect in full effect 🙂
Presumably the cyclist was also “behind” the vehicle two lanes over? I presume you haven’t passed a driving test.
atgni wrote:
Perhaps you should read what you wrote.
You said “share the road”. In order to do this, the driver would have to enter the mandatory lane which they shouldn’t do.
Your very first comment was “Van indicating for some time before turn” which you have never explained what relevance that has, then you go on to make an erroneous claim about “going up the inside”.
You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down.
Seems you don’t like people pointing the implications or contradictions of your comments.
— hirsute Just to clarify your mis statements. It’s a bus lane not a mandatory cycle lane. Going up the inside is not erroneous, the cyclist was behind the not queing van or you would not have seen the indicators before they got up the inside. Incident entirely avoidable by regardless of whether the van crossed the lane marking just by the cyclist observing the indicators. Better if the van hadn’t crossed the lane marking but avoidable either way. Most of this comments section avoidable by you reading what I wrote or by me remembering I was reading a website where some people blindly believe cyclists can do no wrong. I’m not in your gang obviously. Enjoy your riding.— atgni
Poor example to try and fight that battle on, in this instance the cyclist didn’t do anything wrong!
atgni]
I for one, am grateful.
Has anyone been in touch with the company that owns the van and asked for their views?
Edit: I’ve just asked them if they have any comment to make http://www.debaltd.co.uk/contactus.html
2nd edit, a response:
“Good morning Richard,
This incident will be investigated thoroughly. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Kind regards,
Irene Lesnikova
Operations Manager
DEBA UK LIMITED
Cooling Tower Engineering & Environmental Services”
atgni]
Translation: the cyclist exercised his lawful right to continue in a straight line in the lane which he had been occupying for the past half mile.
How fucking dare he?
atgni wrote:
Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.
Van indicating for some time before turn – I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What’s your point?
— hirsute Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don’t go up the inside of something indicating.— atgniWhat you are saying then is that there is no point in any cycle lane, as it is not permissible to underake any cars who are queuing in their lane. This would extend to normal roads where there are 2 lanes and so the road user in lane 1 should not ‘undertake’ any user in lane 2.
Do you know what a mandatory cycle lane is?
— hirsute No. And they weren’t queing in this case. And yes. I didn’t say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.— atgni
Oh of course the cyclist could ‘easily have avoided the conflict’ if only he had accepted that on Britain’s roads, he is dirt, and he needs to get out of the way of all motorised traffic, as soon as a driver indicates – or even doesn’t indicate.
hirsute wrote:
Dbl.
atgni wrote:
i wonder if the van driver would have done the same thing if it have been an HGV rather than a cyclist. I mean he had his indicators on which apparently gives him right of way, which is news to me. I always thought you still had to wait for the lane to be clear before making your move.
Housecathst wrote:
i wonder if the van driver would have done the same thing if it have been an HGV rather than a cyclist. I mean he had his indicators on which apparently gives him right of way, which is news to me. I always thought you still had to wait for the lane to be clear before making your move. — atgni
Nowhere did I say right of way.
Share the road.
Slow for 2 seconds and don’t go up the inside of something indicating.
atgni wrote:
i wonder if the van driver would have done the same thing if it have been an HGV rather than a cyclist. I mean he had his indicators on which apparently gives him right of way, which is news to me. I always thought you still had to wait for the lane to be clear before making your move.
— Housecathst Nowhere did I say right of way. Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don’t go up the inside of something indicating.— atgni
so does share the road also apply to white van drivers or just cyclists. You could say the same thing to the van driver couldn’t you ?
There also the fact that the van driver should give way to the person already in the lane too, but we’ll ignore that for now.
Housecathst wrote:
Yes sharing the road applies to both.
atgni wrote:
i wonder if the van driver would have done the same thing if it have been an HGV rather than a cyclist. I mean he had his indicators on which apparently gives him right of way, which is news to me. I always thought you still had to wait for the lane to be clear before making your move.
— Housecathst Nowhere did I say right of way. Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don’t go up the inside of something indicating.— atgni
Oh God, that weasel-phrase ‘share the road’ (translation – ‘the road belongs to the motorised’).
Your basic argument doesn’t make a lot of sense. The van driver was indicating that he wanted to break the law and drive into the mandatory cycle lane. Aside from the fact he had no right to do that anyway, at the very least he ought to wait till it’s clear.
Indicating doesn’t mean ‘you have to get out of my way I’m coming through regardless’.
If he’d been indicating he wanted to drive onto the pavement would that make it a pedestrian’s fault if he’d then driven onto it nearly hitting a pededestrian?
Housecathst wrote:
You do. You complete your manœuvre when it is safe to do so, not when the road users occupying the space you want are small and soft enough that you know they’ll get out of your way.
atgni wrote:
I love how people think merely using their indicators is all they have to do. There is a lot more to driving properly than turning your indicator on…
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
Many don’t even bother doing that. I’ve also seen many cars with steering wheel activated indicators, only coming on just as the turn is initiated.
Back to the video – when cycling on busy roads, indicating is part of negotiating your way into a space. Cyclists do it all the time – signal and position yourself for a move, negotiating a safe way to join faster traffic. We do it because we can’t force our way into moving traffic if nobody yields, which is what the van driver has chosen to do.
Being honest, I think my reaction would have depended on what mood I was in. Was my last ten minutes of cycling safe and pleasant? Slow down and let the van in. Was this the fifth time in a mile that someone had tried to bully me with their vehicle? I’ll continue on my course and suffer a close pass to make a point, which seems to be what happened here. I might also not have been expecting the van to cross the solid white line and calculated that I could safely proceed and clear the front of the van before the dashed lines began.
The van driver certainly gave
The van driver certainly gave plenty of notice of his intentions and he changed lane at the very end of the bus/cycle lane. He maybe hit the last few feet of the cycle lane but that is hardly a crime.
If CycleLondon had been a bit more courteous and aware of his fellow road users this incident wouldn’t have happened. He could easily have slowed down and let the van into the lane but deliveratley speeded up to try and make a point of cyclists being vicitmised.
Gives us all a bad name.
fizrar6 wrote:
Yes it is.
fizrar6 wrote:
We’re cyclists not van drivers, so how does a bad van driver give cyclists a bad name exactly?
fizrar6 wrote:
Today I learned that cycling in a straight line along a road in a perfectly legal and proper manner is now giving cyclists a bad name if you don’t defer to a motorised vehicle and maybe doff your cap to your road tax paying superiors.
fizrar6 wrote:
I agree. Yes, the van driver wasn’t perfect, but the cyclist could see that comming for miles and was looking for trouble or just totally unaware. Both were in the wrong there. The cyclist was never going to safely make it past before the end of the bus lane and the van driver went across fractionally early. Had the cyclist used a little bit of defensive riding and observation it would never have happened. Had the van driver waited until the end of the bus lane he would still have had a cyclist undertakeing him when he was changing lane.
John Smith wrote:
That’s just another might is right comment
That’s just speculation.
John Smith wrote:
1. Indicating does not give you priority.
2. It matters not a fuck how long he had been indicating. He waits until the lane is clear before he moves into it.
3. I didn’t see the cyclist speed up. His speed goes from 8 km/h to 6 km/h during the incident. How does that constitute ‘looking for trouble’?
Are we inundated with driver trolls these days?
John Smith wrote:
Tosh. The cyclist was not ‘in the wrong’. He broke no law, and did not behave in any way that was unlawful, discourteous or dangerous. Unless of course you count ‘not deferring to his betters who pay road tax’ as ‘discourteous’.
fizrar6 wrote:
Allow me to translate:
‘if Cycle London had known his place and got out of the way of the much more important motor vehicle driver….’
He didn’t speed up.
He didn’t speed up.
Might is right then?
I like the way this thread is
I like the way this thread is going.
please stop feeding the
please stop feeding the trolls…
Hirsute was trying to show
Hirsute was trying to show you what is implied by your comment. You only made negative comments about the cyclistw who was not doing anything wrong. You didn’t comment on the illegal and dangerous driving that forced the situation. It seems you are blaming the vulnerable road users who are being bullied by the dangerous driver.
You also keep stating things that are patently incorrect.
It’s a bus lane, you’re supposed to overtake what’s moving slower in the lanes to the right, that’s the entire point of it.
The van was not slowing into a gap, there was no safe gap to move into and any minimal distance between the two cyclists is a bus lane which the driver should not be moving into in any case.
The cyclist evidently did save time by not emergency braking for the dangerous driver who continued to escalate the conflict he had caused, because he was ahead of the van in the end and not behind it. This is irrelevant to the dangerous driving or whether cyclists should give way to drivers attempting things they shouldn’t. It’s plainly whataboutery to distract from the issue.
I’ve seen enough to have formed the opinion that you really don’t understand your own comments.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Really?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
He’s a troll. Mods, can you do your stuff?
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
Oh do behave. It’s a difference of opinion, and he’s wrong, but you can’t expect someone to get chopped for that.
Thankfully the Mods aren’t so sensitive. You and I have both got away with far worse.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
You quoted ChrisB200SX – did you mean to call him/her (probably a him) a troll or were you referring to Hirsute?
Either way, I wouldn’t expect mods to do anything about a bit of lively debate.
I’m just wondering what all
I’m just wondering what all those people defending the driving of the van driver would say if the cyclist indicated then crossed the continuous white line into the path of the van. Of course I’m not really wondering, I know that they would blame the cyclist. This is the equivalent of white privilege; anything a driver does is excusable and anything a cyclist does is wrong.
Not so much defending the van
Not so much defending the van driver as suggesting that on a busy urban road there are going to be situations where another road user does something wrong and you are going to have to deal with it.
Being aware of the limitations to visibility when operating a van is not a crime. Being aware that said van user is telegraphing an intention that may bring them into a line of conflict with you and making just the teensiest effort to take control of that situation to make it safer for yourself and others around you does not make you a victim of the “might is right” culture.
Even if another road user insists or being an utter penis, does not mean you have to be one too. In this scenario some drivers would take a cyclist yielding position as encouragement that forcing their way into cycle lanes is OK, but most people are basically decent and recognise when someone else is cutting them a break, they may even return that favour the next time they come across a cyclist not sticking 100% to the rules or needing a bit of courtesy to make their way.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Well, I did ask for a comment from the company, but wasn’t expecting one here. What exactly is your position with them?
Mungecrundle wrote:
This rider was being entirely reasonable, he hasn’t done anything that stoops to the driver’s level.
I suggest anyone who pulls a move like that in the video is exactly the type that will perceive it’s fine if the cyclist gives way and that reinforces their idea that it’s acceptable to drive as such.
There is a responsibility on licenced drivers to avoid a collision if the situation was reversed, as the danger is not reversed. I don’t follow what you mean by doing some other cyclist a favour when they don’t stick to the rules. What are they going to do, wind the window down and pass them a sticky bottle?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Wrong. There is a requirement on all road users to avoid a collision. This basic duty of care to others absolutely trumps any “right of way”, “my priority” nonsense. AND DOES NOT MAKE YOU THE WEAKER PERSON!
As to “favour”, how about trivial little things like moving over a smidge to ease someone else filtering past as an example?
Some good points about being courteous to the point of confusing the situation and potentially putting others in the path of danger.
Mungecrundle wrote:
There is a responsibility on licenced drivers to avoid a collision if the situation was reversed, as the danger is not reversed. I don’t follow what you mean by doing some other cyclist a favour…
— Mungecrundle Wrong. There is a requirement on all road users to avoid a collision. As to “favour”, how about trivial little things like moving over a smidge to ease someone else filtering past as an example?— ChrisB200SX
How is what I said wrong? You realise neither cyclist collided with the van?
I don’t really equate having to take evasive action due to deliberately illegal and dangerous driving to it being unreasonable to expect sensible and considerate road positioning.
I’m currently driving into London and leaving enough space for filtering bikes/motorbikes literally takes zero effort. I don’t really see that as doing someone a favour.
I’m always a bit nervous
I’m always a bit nervous about trying to give way to someone in these type of situations when I’m on a bike. I’d be worried that other people using the cycle lane wouldn’t spot what was going on and would carry on and potentially get into trouble.
I’ve had it a few times on normal roads with drivers – I’ll try and take up as much room as possible to let someone out or cross the road and people behind plough on regardless and overtake without reading the situation. So unless I’m sure there is nothing behind me I tend not to be ‘courteous’. And if there is nothing behind me then there is little point me giving way – they can wait the extra few seconds and go after me.
Podc wrote:
Completely agree.
One of my pet peeves is when a motorist is courteous to another vehicle (e.g. let it pull out of a side road) but that blocks your own progress as you may be filtering on the inside of traffic.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Completely agree.
One of my pet peeves is when a motorist is courteous to another vehicle (e.g. let it pull out of a side road) but that blocks your own progress as you may be filtering on the inside of traffic.— Podc
Like when the motorist coming out only looks at the now stationary car and not at the still happily moving cyclist using the cycle lane?
brooksby wrote:
Yes, that’d be it.
It also annoys me if I’m overtaking a line of traffic on the outside and a similar thing happens even though I can’t really protest as I’m the one overtaking (when not safe to do so).
I am the cyclist who took the
I am the cyclist who took the video. I have decided to upload another version, this time with two minutes (give or take) either side of the incident.
As you can see, at no time did I ‘undertake’ the van. At no time did I break the law in any way, shape or form. The first I saw the van was just before it pulled over, across a solid white line. I did not speed up, and I did not go ‘looking for trouble’ – which in any case is a sort of ‘dog whistle’ phrase meaning ‘cyclist didn’t know his place’ – as is ‘share the road’ which in London at any rate, just means ‘out my fucking way’. And I was not ‘behind the not queing van’. The van driver overtook me and then pulled across my path. I did not undertake him.
As you will also note, a couple of junctions before that, I came up in a cycle lane, and a van driver indicated left, and what did I do? I held back and let him turn, rather than creating a conflict, since he in fact indicated very late and I was in a cycle lane. But I don’t go looking for trouble, since on the UK’s carcentric roads, trouble finds everyone who’s not in a 15. tonne lump of metal.
I know that junction very well. As you can see, it’s essentially one lane plus a bus lane, which becomes three lanes, of which lane 1 is the left turn. On a daily basis, I (and other cyclists – sometimes a dozen or more of us) am barged out of the way by drivers. Generally, it’s car drivers and so no livery and so no opportunity to contact the company (the Met would just laugh if I submitted this to them). Because I know what to expect now, I often sit on the right-most third of the bus lane as we approach the split where it becomes three, to discourage drivers from doing exactly what this knob-end did. I didn’t do that on this occasion, as I’d been off the bike due to a shoulder injury, and this was my first day back on. At the point where that incident occurred, I was on mile 18 and was flagging.
Finally, as for the company’s promise to ‘investigate’ – this was notified to the company via e-mail at 07:54 on the morning of 08 August 2018. They did not respond, and I am forced to conclude that they don’t give a shit.
At the end of the day, this driver crossed a solid white line, forced me and a couple of other cyclists out of the way, and sounded his horn in a built-up area. Please tell me, for the love of god, how that is in any way my fault.
I agree with the posters who suspect that some of the responses on here are from trolls and/or the company representatives.
cycle.london wrote:
Not so sure about that, I think they (atgni and John Smith(?)) are just idiots.
Spoiler alert, not much to see in the extra footage, especially after the incident.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Killjoy. 😛
I think you should be
I think you should be arrested cycle.london as the video clearly shows you at 50 seconds travelling at 232 km/h !!
hirsute wrote:
Oh yes, I’d not noticed that! Fair cop, guv’, I’ll come quietly.
cycle.london wrote:
Oh yes, I’d not noticed that! Fair cop, guv’, I’ll come quietly.— hirsute
You seemed to be going at a similar speed whilst stopped at a red light.
Do you not understand that cyclists do not stop at red lights ?!
hirsute wrote:
Oh yes, I’d not noticed that! Fair cop, guv’, I’ll come quietly.
— cycle.london You seemed to be going at a similar speed whilst stopped at a red light. Do you not understand that cyclists do not stop at red lights ?!— hirsute
What are these ‘red lights’ of which you speak?
hirsute wrote:
Now that’s what I call cycling furiously!
I’ve edited my orginal
I’ve edited my orginal replies several times prior to posting and will summarise by saying personally for me, all this highlights is the widening of the gulf between various road user groups. It fuels this current climete of motors v cycles v pedesrians, with the colsutation on potentail law reforms to “protect the most vounlurable road users” I’m not sure if this example strenghens or weakens our arguments.
I don’t know the road layout other than from what I can see on the video, which I have reviewed several times. I would suggest the first incident with the VW van, is an example of poor road planning, design and layout. Effectivley the cycle lane appears to be a left hand turn only lane, as the VW was already in the correct lane for the left turn, his late indication was a courtesey to the other road users, including cyclists, using the cycle lane that may indeed be going straight on and therefore by using the green tarmac “cycle lane” actually puts cyclists in the wrong lane, for going straigt on. Personally I would be in the middle lane, in this type of situation and not use the “cycle lane” as though I was in my car..
As I say, I’m not from London and AFAIK, use of cycle lanes are optional, not mandontry.
The second incident with the white van, sorry but I am struggling a bit with the preception and I’m assuming out of all the other close passess submitted to Road cc for consideration on the day, this being the worse example.
I appreicate the OP says they’ve not been on the bike for awhile and fatigued after 18 miles, but knows the road layout and route well and usually takes the last 3rd of the lane but on this ocassion was more in secondary.
Personally I think the OP had the blinkers on/auto pilot a bit and was following the cyclist in front, with the gray T shirt and black ruksack, who being in front of the van had moved into the middle lane, causing the OP to drift a bit to the right, to their normal position at this juction, at the same time as the van driver had started his manovour, moving into the left lane, beleving the OP would maintain their course/line ie secondary position and may have been going left, for all the van driver knew, not as though OP was signalling to move to the right from the bus lane that mergers to a left turn only lane.
The van crossed the solid white line approx a meter from where the bus lane ends, possibly due to the longer stationary queuing traffic ahead and to position behind the red car in the left lane, if he’d waited to the end of the line he probably would of got stuck between the left and middle lanes causing further issues for all other road users.
The beep of the horn could of been for anything.
I’m genuinly not trolling, yes the van driver could of waited in his current lane until the OP had safetly pased, however given how busy the road appears, there could be loads more cyclists behind also doing the same ie using the left lane to filter prior to switching at the junction, which then means motors going straight on, get stuck behind the van.
It comes down to planning design and road layout again, if the bus lane was shorter or didn’t exist, it would allow vehicles to get in lane earlier.
Personall I’d be filtering through on the right to avoid the left hook.
AndyH01 wrote:
No, I did not have ‘blinkers’ on and no, I was not ‘on autopilot’. Both are ways to get killed, and on my commute into and out of London, I am insanely focused at all times. I knew exactly what was going on ahead of me and – if you’ll note the frequent ‘lifesaver’ glances to my left and right – behind me.
Diddums.
Tough shit. He waits. He doesn’t barge in.
You may not be trolling, but you’re not that bright.
cycle.london wrote:
I was on your side until that last sentence. I thought AndyH01 made a fair and honest account of what can be seen on the video… from his perspective. Pity you had to lower yourself in that way.
kevvjj wrote:
‘AndyH01’ essentially forwarded the driver’s narrative that ‘if only the cyclist had got out of the way’, then none of this would have happened. I don’t call that ‘fair and honest’ and I don’t call it very intelligent.
Sorry.
cycle.london wrote:
That’s not at all how I read AndyH01’s contribution to this discussion. Methinks you are being just a tad precious now. it’s time to accept that we all have differing opinions and if you are going to post videos then at least be prepared to accept different viewpoints without resorting to paraphrasing them in your responses.
kevvjj wrote:
I wouldn’t have it any other way, guv’. But I do reserve the right to point out when people are being utter dicks.
kevvjj wrote:
No it isn’t.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Idiots!
😉
AndyH01′ essentially forwarded the driver’s narrative that ‘if only the cyclist had got out of the way’, then none of this would have happened. I don’t call that ‘fair and honest’ and I don’t call it very intelligent.
Sorry.
[/quote]
No I’m I’m not saying “cyclist should get out the way” it’s contextual and in this particular video from what I’ve seen the situation appears to of been further avoided.
I don’t know, as others pointed out, whether any cyclists were behind the OP or whether the OP had moved into his blind spot but the van driver had slowed and allowed the OP to pass.
In context it seems a non incident, yes it shouldn’t have happened but given the layout of the road it is a kind of a pinch point.
As I say I’m lucky not to live/cycle in London and I’d be in the right lane.
Why when we have disagreements do we have to use insults and assertain someone has low intellgence?
cycle.london wrote:
And still anything but succinct. Prolix is neither intelligent nor proof of your case.
No, I did not have ‘blinkers’ on and no, I was not ‘on autopilot’. Both are ways to get killed, and on my commute into and out of London, I am insanely focused at all times. I knew exactly what was going on ahead of me and – if you’ll note the frequent ‘lifesaver’ glances to my left and right – behind me.
Diddums.
Tough shit. He waits. He doesn’t barge in.
You may not be trolling, but you’re not that bright.
[/quote]
Yes I had noted the few glances to the left and right and in my inital though would suggest you’d at kleast subconciously registered the van prior to it being in front of you, although you state the first you knew was when the van was moving to the left at the same time as you moving to the right.
This is the issue and there is no point in being dead right, selfish attitude of he doesn’t barge in…..speaks volumes to me and again comes down to this us v them attitude. Sometimes defensive riding/driving means allowing traffic in. It’s funny to watch at merge in lanes pinch points brings road users into confrontation, whether car on car/lorry or other.
Again sometimes it’s down to the road layout, which can’t always be helped due to the limited space available.
As I said depending on everything else around, especially behind, may not just effect you or the van but many other road users, like as I said, given on the position in front, it could have knock on effects behind which we may be oblivious to.
Given your riding position futher up with the VW and from your prespective that you gave way, when in fact you’re in the wrong lane I’d suggest it is you Sir that is not bright and again at the junction with the van you are also in the wrong lane just because bikes are more agile you can’t have cake and eat it that is you can’t complain when someone cuts you up but it’s ok to chop lanes when it suits.
As I said the preception is unclear and there seems to be enough space, the van was going slowly and did end up waiting for you to pass prior to continuing. In the grand scheme of things I’ve seen plenty worse.
I wasn’t there or involved and as I said cameras can distort the proximity but in cold light of day without emotion, it just doesn’t seem an issue especially if as you say you was aware you should of been able to plan/prepared better and have avoided by being you’re usual road position earlier or gone round the back of it.
It would be interesting to hear from the driver and see any footage they may have to better understand but in reality if I was looking at from the company points of view as requested, I’d find it difficult to do anything other than to ask the driver for their opinion. It could also make me think as an operator that cyclist just moan so the next more serious near miss is completly ignored.
Just a couple of points here.
Just a couple of points here..
I did ‘register’ the van. I did not see it, because like everyone else, my peripheral vision is not there to see but to ‘note’ (or ‘perceive’, or whatever you choose to call it).
A vehicle coming up behind me in lane 2, and I’m somehow at fault because I didn’t ‘know’ that he was going to turn left?
You’re having a laugh.
Erm, no. I was not ‘in the wrong lane’. I suggest you watch the video again. I was in lane 1 – the left-hand lane and the correct lane – and as I approached the traffic signals, a cycle lane begins. I move into that cycle lane. Again – the correct lane. I pass several vehicles which are on my right, which again, is entirely lawful and legal. Then I notice a VW van, and I think, ‘Hmm.. he’s not accelerating very fast, I bet you he’s turning left’. And so he was. Now, I was in my own lane, and I could have gone stright ahead, forcing the VW driver to wait before he turned left. But I had come up behind him, not the other way around, so I let him turn left. Again, I was [i]not[/i] in the wrong lane.
It’s because of shit like that that I identified you either as a troll or as a bit thick. Watch the video again. I am in the left-hand lane i.e. the bus lane. The correct lane. As I approach the junction, the left lane in effect ‘splits’ and there is a new lane which starts. That new lane is the left lane of three, and it is the only one which is designated as a left turn. That left turn lane did not exist at the point the driver of the DEBA van overtook me. So how come I was in the ‘wrong lane’, genius? Which lane was I supposed to be in? There were at that point only two lanes – the left-hand one and the right-hand one. I was in the left-hand one. If this was the wrong lane in your mind, then you think I should have been in the right-hand lane?
FFS, this has to be a wind-up.
I did not ‘chop’ lanes. I stayed in the same lane the entire time.
cycle.london wrote:
No it appears you moved to the right, to the middle lane, in front of the white van.The bus lane you was in had ended.
AndyH01 wrote:
I can only assume you’re watching a different set of videos than the rest of us. I just went back and watched them again – forward camera and back camera. The cyclist doesn’t deviate. One lane to the left and he’d be on the pavement. One lane to the right and he’d be directly in front of the van. The only time I see him deviate within his own lane is when he dips a bit to the left to go around the van which has cut in front of him.
He doesn’t move to the right. When the van passes him, there ARe only two lanes.
There are a lot of videos up here where there is ambiguity. This isn’t one of them. The driver of the van was 100% in the wrong.
I can only assume you’re watching a different set of videos than the rest of us. I just went back and watched them again – forward camera and back camera. The cyclist doesn’t deviate. One lane to the left and he’d be on the pavement. One lane to the right and he’d be directly in front of the van. The only time I see him deviate within his own lane is when he dips a bit to the left to go around the van which has cut in front of him.
He doesn’t move to the right. When the van passes him, there ARe only two lanes.
There are a lot of videos up here where there is ambiguity. This isn’t one of them. The driver of the van was 100% in the wrong.
[/quote]
Must be as I can only see the front video the one with a vw van and then a white van, no back camera video that I can see?
AndyH01 wrote:
How do you figure that? The van driver starts crossing a solid white line at 06secs. The cyclist at that point is still in their original lane. The line is still solid till about 09secs.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
That’s exactly what I see. The bus lane ‘widens’ to form the left lane and the middle lane. Cyclist stays in middle lane, where he was. Driver cuts across from what is now the right lane, across the middle lane, aiming for the left lane. Cyclist has to brake and go around him. How the devil does that make the cylist at fault?
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
The van moves over prior to the three lanes, it’s only two lanes further back- bus lane which the driver cut into about a meter prior to when he technically should and the main lstraight on lane for rest of traffic not able to use bus lane.
I’ve not said that it’s the cyclist fault.
Just before Tesco express as the van is indicating, assuming op is in line with the guy with grey tshirt and rucksac there is only two lanes, OP is near the curb, after the incident at about 3.22 on the full version, you can almost see the line that’s going to be taken by the two cyclist in front; the grey tshirt and the one further up to the right ahead of where the lane splits with the yellow bag compared to the other cyclist, closer to the left who one assumes is indeed going left at the juction.
At aprox 3.25 in the full version video if he had stayed on the previous line he’d be closer to the curb behind the red car and the cyclist with the blue helmet but no he’s in the middle lane suggesting he’s moved to the right.
AndyH01 wrote:
What can I say, man? Should’ve gone to Specsavers.
AndyH01 wrote:
Looks to me like a full van-length short of the solid line ending, so more like 5m than 1m. Are you sure you aren’t bending the facts to minimise the problem with your original argument? And I’m not sure the word ‘technically’ means anything here. He was changing lanes where he wasn’t legally allowed to, so the requirement to be patient is even stronger than it would normally be.
AndyH01 wrote:
Sorry, duplicate.
cycle.london wrote:
Or succinct.
Actually, the responses here
Actually, the responses here remind me of the thread – i think it was that one – where the lunatic Audi driver (is there any other kind?) went ballistic. SOmeone asked ‘out of curiousity, how long should a driver wait to turn left?’
Someone responded that he appreciated that it was a genuine question, but that someone should need to ask it spoke volumes.
I’ve put the footage from the
I’ve put the footage from the rear camera up.
Ignore the timestamp in the bottom right. I rarely bother to set that.
I believe that this video shows that I did nothing wrong, and that the driver not only forced me to swerve to his left, but also forced another cyclist to swerve around to the right. The lady in the pink top was turning left anyway, so she was already over to the left and wasn’t much inconvenienced.
I find it curious that one or two have said that it wouldn’t have cost me anything to have braked and go around to the right of the van. That would of course have had [i]me[/i] crossing a solid white line and committing an offence.
Can someone with any brains tell me why I should ‘get out of the way’ of a driver who is committing several offences at once, just because he’s a driver and I’m not? It’s like a group of people walking four abreast down a narrow pavement, and then starting to verbally abuse someone because he didn’t squeeze against the wall to let them past. How can this be right? I’m struggling to comprehend so many of the responses here.
I didn’t submit the original video to win any contests, so saying that this is the ‘worst’ one yet is a bit puerile. I submitted it to show – not for the first time on this site – the casual aggression to which we’re subjected on the road, and the utter disregard for safety of others displayed by British drivers. I think my video achieved that.
Personally, having seen he
Personally, having seen he was indicating, i would have slowed and allowed the van to move over, just common courtesy which unfortunately seems to be disappearing on our roads these days. Thats no a dig at cycle london just an observation about traffic movement in general.
I might have felt more aggrieved had the speeds been greater and the van drivers actions been more aggressive. Its more like handbags at ten paces.
No doubt others will disagree but thats what forums are all about.
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
No, that’s not ‘common courtesy’. That’s what you call subservience, and we have so internalised our ‘inferiority’ when compared to the motor car, that we unthinkingly stand back, lower our eyes and let our masters go on ahead.
cycle.london wrote:
I dont like using foul language on forums as there might be children reading so – “your as thick as claggy toffee”. You were travelling at 8mph and a vehicle in front of you indicated to come into the lane was it that much of a problem to allow them in ?????
Had you been in a car would you have still tried to get through the gap after the van pulled over ???
I’m sorry but this could have easily been avoided by both the van driver and yourself. Like i said earlier had you been going at 20mph + and he pulled over i can understand your annoyance but howay man get a grip.
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
Life in the big city, I reckon.
The rat race is a bit ‘rattier’ and for longer and further. I reckon that if you showed what most people might consider common courtesy, you’d arrive in work for your Monday morning sometime around Wednesday lunchtime. People just appear to take advantage of any hint of gap.
If you’re in the wrong lane in rush hour, it’s your tough shit. If you’re White Van Man you might fancy bullying your way in. You want to do that with other metal boxes, fair enough. You do that with people on bikes, you’re a twat. If you then get indignant about a cyclist might not like you barging your way in with your three tons, you need to be off the road for a serious spell.
Blimey, that escalated
Blimey, that escalated quickly.
90 posts!!! Good grief either
90 posts!!! Good grief either kick through or let him in. Don’t fanny about like you did…
If the van driver wouldn’t
If the van driver wouldn’t have done it to a bus (8.5 tonnes for a single decker) then he’s a bully and the posting of the video is entirely legitimate.
ktache wrote:
well said.
That incident is on my commuting route, and it’s all too common for drivers to do this at a couple of places. It’s a result of lanes narrowing and widening, where the cyclists are positioning themselves to go straight on, and the drivers are moving across to the left either to turn left, or to avoid getting caught behind a driver turning right. I’d say most people, drivers and cyclists, negotiate it ok most times, but enough drivers try to bully their way across for it to be A Thing in my mind, and I make a point of holding my line when they do.
ConcordeCX wrote:
That’s the crux of the issue isn’t it, “if they wouldn’t do it to a bus then they’re a bully”, we don’t know whether they would of started manouvering if a bus was same distance/speed as the OP, or whether a bus driver would of flashed their lights or held back, to let them in, thus avoiding the conflict.
Good summary ConcordeCXJ, bar the last part of holding your line (regardless, being dead right) to make a point.
Like I say, I’m lucky I don’t have to contend with London rush hour traffic and most of time happily coexist with other road users, I don’t feel that I get bullied on the roads I ride on a daily basis, as I would adapt my riding to suit the local area, if I did feel that I was being bullied, it may make me change my mindset.