Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Live blog: Jeremy Vine criticised for claiming taxi driver was at fault in near miss with cyclist; Westminster attacker who drove at cyclists guilty of attempted murder; Lachlan Morton's GBDuro film + more

All today's news from the site and beyond.....
17 July 2019, 15:08
Jeremy Vine posts footage of cyclist nearly being hit by taxi driver - but the internet says cyclist is in the wrong

Mr. Vine is a keen cyclist as you will all know, and also keen to call out bad driving and post the evidence on social media armed with his action camera; however on this occasion not everyone had sympathy for the cyclist who Vine recorded experiencing a near miss with a taxi. The cyclist rode out on a crossing and failed to spot the taxi coming from her left, with the driver swerving to avoid at the last minute. Vine claims the cab driver "saw her a mile out", to which not everyone agrees...

Vine attempted to clarify his comments, saying the cyclist is at fault but the driver "had the option of stopping" - which led to more derision. Has Mr. Vine got this one wrong, or should cabbie have been more aware of potential hazards before approaching the crossing? 

17 July 2019, 12:22
Man who drove at cyclists outside Westminster in 2018 is convicted of attempted murder

Salih Khater, 30, drove at cyclists and attempted to swerve towards police officers in Parliament Square on 14 August 2018 - at the trial, the Old Bailey heard it was 'miraculous' that no one was killed, with two cyclists taken to hospital with non-life threatening injuries. 

Although Khater denied two counts of attempted murder and claimed he got lost and "panicked" driving around Westminster, the prosecution successfully argued that he wanted to cause maximum carnage with his Ford Fiesta. He was found guilty of the charges after two days of deliberation by the jury. 

 

17 July 2019, 12:00
We're off, and there's already a breakaway...

Barely five minutes in to stage 11 of the Tour and a plucky quartet has already shot off...

17 July 2019, 11:48
Dimension Data to rebrand as Team NTT for 2020 season
Dimension Data (1).jpg

In a press release, Team Dimension Data for Qhubeka announced they will be called Team NTT from the start of 2020. They also jointly announced the singings of U23 Italian youngsters Matteo Sobrero and Samuele Battistella to their World Tour roster for next year.  

17 July 2019, 09:49
Team Katusha Alpecin might be safe

After several reports that Katusha would pull their funding, leaving the likes of Alex Dowsett out of contract for 2020, it looks like owner Igor Makarov could be about to fund the team, keeping their World Tour status.

With the Tour being such a busy time for sponsor deals and transfer rumours, this is one that we'll be keeping a close eye on.

17 July 2019, 09:46
Geraint Thomas and Luke Rowe pick the name for their Tour podcast

As if they weren't busy enough, the Team Ineos pair are also recording a daily podcast during the Tour - and it's now called 'Watts Occurring' following a competition for followers to come up with a new name. You can now listen to episode 2 of Watt's Occurring recorded during the first rest day on Spotify.  

17 July 2019, 08:11
Lachlan Morton's GBDuro adventure made into an epic short film

Rapha have released a 32 minute-long film documenting the EF First rider's victory at the brutal GBDuro bikepacking race, in which he completed the brutal 2000km mixed terrain course in a time of 111 hours and 44 minutes. The ridiculously hard route, the terrible weather, the tears and the stunning views are all captured in this frankly excellent film from Rapha, which is well worth half an hour of your time. 

17 July 2019, 08:29
Are Brailsford's 'new team' more popular in France this year?

Brailsford has claimed that Team Ineos are getting a much better reception than they did as Team Sky last year, and during our trip to Brussels it was certainly evident that there was no ill-feeling towards Ineos as they took to the stage for the team presentations - in 2018 they were loudly booed. Reasons suggested in the comments include the exciting addition of Egan Bernal, and the fact the team aren't dominating as much - although it's now certainly heading tha way with Thomas and Bernal placed second and third. What do you reckon? 

17 July 2019, 08:00
"A stupid thing to do" - Ned Boulting and David Millar complete mammoth Brompton ride

The lengths they will go to to push Millar's special edition Bromptons... Millar and Ned Boulting embarked on an 80km ride between Albi and Toulouse on Bromptons yesterday, with Ned looking a  bit worse for wear with 25km to go. Despite getting dropped, he made it eventually...

17 July 2019, 07:37
Mountain bike jumping over the Tour de France peloton is almost a tradition
tour de france mtb jump

Yesterday we shared a video of a mtb'er jumping a ramp over the top of the passing Tour de France peloton - and as it happens, it's been going on for years. off.road.cc have compiled some of the best jumps from 2003 to 2019, click here to check em out. 

Arriving at road.cc in 2017 via 220 Triathlon Magazine, Jack dipped his toe in most jobs on the site and over at eBikeTips before being named the new editor of road.cc in 2020, much to his surprise. His cycling life began during his students days, when he cobbled together a few hundred quid off the back of a hard winter selling hats (long story) and bought his first road bike - a Trek 1.1 that was quickly relegated to winter steed, before it was sadly pinched a few years later. Creatively replacing it with a Trek 1.2, Jack mostly rides this bike around local cycle paths nowadays, but when he wants to get the racer out and be competitive his preferred events are time trials, sportives, triathlons and pogo sticking - the latter being another long story.  

Add new comment

37 comments

Avatar
jambo73 | 5 years ago
3 likes

Are we allowed to consider both are at Fault - we dont HAVE to pick a side.

The cyclist clearly shouldnt have crossed when she did 

but the taxi driver shouldnt have just have barrelled on through

 

Avatar
Dingaling | 5 years ago
3 likes

Everybody seems to be concentrating on the JV story. Am I the only one who is wondering why it took the jury 2 DAYS to find Ars*#ole Khater guilty! I reckon 2 minutes would have been about 118 seconds too long.

Avatar
John Smith | 5 years ago
1 like

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

Avatar
freespirit1 replied to John Smith | 5 years ago
0 likes

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

 

Or to put it another way;

Rules of this site:

1. The cyclist is always right

2. When the cyclist is wrong refer to rule 1

Avatar
Awavey replied to freespirit1 | 5 years ago
3 likes

freespirit1 wrote:

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

 

Or to put it another way;

Rules of this site:

1. The cyclist is always right

2. When the cyclist is wrong refer to rule 1

or to put it another way 5 people died on the UK roads today as the result of collisions involving motor vehicles, 5 people will die tomorrow, and every day for the rest of this year and the next, and the one after that...but yeah cyclists grrr!!!

what people are commenting on is the down right hypocrisy where if a pedestrian walks out in front of a cyclist without looking, its the cyclists fault if they hit that pedestrian,but if a cyclist rides out in front of a motor vehicle in almost the same setup...its still the cyclists fault for simply being in the way.

many of us do not feel this is equitable, therefore the "rules" people are adopting are simply reflecting how officialdom treats cyclists as follows

1 cyclist is always wrong

2 refer to rule 1.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to freespirit1 | 5 years ago
2 likes

freespirit1 wrote:

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

 

Or to put it another way;

Rules of this site:

1. The cyclist is always right

2. When the cyclist is wrong refer to rule 1

 

I'm tired of this pathetic passive-aggressive way of trolling without actually attempting to construct a meaningful argument.  It's a hallmark of conservative-minded people across a lot of different topics.  Contribute something useful or don't bother.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to John Smith | 5 years ago
2 likes

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

no, you haven't got it right, you clearly haven't the capacity to grasp what's going on have you, exactly like freespirit!

We are making the point that there is an inequity in the law as it is applied to various road users.

Motorists basically get carte blanche to do what they like and blame absolved at virtually every avenue, then pedestrians next and finally people on bikes who have to take the brunt of responsibility for not just not getting killed.hurt but also have to do the same when it's a supposed more vulnerable road user such as a pedestrian (except we know that peds do more harm than people on bikes on our streets!)

When the cyclist came onto the road this is no different to the lady who died when Alliston was convicted of her death, if the motorist had time to sound his horn then he would have been found guilty of the cyclists death if that had been the outcome. The pedeestrian in the Alliston case was not found to be at fault, the pedestrian the other week was only found to be 50% to blame despite the blind ignorance/walking into the path of the cyclist who again braked and diverted away but the opedestrian collided with him. All we want is equity in the application of the rules/law as it is for other road users. 

People like you simply aren't capable of understanding the basic concept of equity and the similarities between cases where people on bikes are having the law and standard of behaviour to be held to being applied differently, even when compared to a road user that we know maim and kill by the tens of thosusand every year!

jog on sonny!

Avatar
brooksby replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
3 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

When the cyclist came onto the road this is no different to the lady who died when Alliston was convicted of her death, if the motorist had time to sound his horn then he would have been found guilty of the cyclists death if that had been the outcome.

Exactly!

IIRC the fact that Alliston was able to sound his horn and shout out was used against him when he was on trial for hitting a woman who'd walked out in front of him, and whom he'd tried to avoid.

So, it should be that if the taxi had time to sound his horn, and didn't make any attempt to otherwise avoid hitting the cyclist, then the full force of the Law should have come crashing down on the taxi driver if he'd hit her.

Except we know that it wouldn't have...

Avatar
Hirsute replied to John Smith | 5 years ago
0 likes

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

Let's say it was cyclist approaching the crossing on the road, do they still have to stop for the cyclist who couldn't be bothered to look or take any care?

I've  had a few close calls with some morons cycling through red or straight off the pavement - they couldn't give a shit about other cyclists, but apparently I should be arguing for equity or something.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to John Smith | 5 years ago
3 likes

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

Perhaps you may also want to go and check google for the definition of the word "Sarcasm" because you clearly do not grasp the concept which is being employed by some commentators in this thread regarding Jeremy Vine.

Specifically sarcasm being used to highlight the disparity in the way the law is applied to to cyclists in comparison to other road users in many circumstances. 

For example Charlie Alliston was jailed for killing a pedestrian whilst cycling a fixie with no rear brakes, yet 18 year old Max Coopey kills 2 pedestrians whilst driving his parents Audi A5 whilst over the legal limits for Cannabis and also had Codeine in his system was recorded as a "road traffic collision" despite the 18 year old driver stating that "you don't slow down for the possibility of someone being on the other side of a blind corner" and “Any drug combination can affect your ability to drive safely, but I wasn’t, in my opinion, under the influence of cannabis.”

The reason he was driving his parents car was because his car was off the road due to a prior accident.

Yes very different circumstances but both resulted in deaths of pedestrians yet the cyclist was jailed and the car driver never even received a driving ban for killing 2 pedestrians.

Avatar
Robert Hardy replied to TriTaxMan | 5 years ago
0 likes
craigstitt]<p>[quote=John Smith wrote:

The reason he was driving his parents car was because his car was off the road due to a prior accident.

Yes very different circumstances but both resulted in deaths of pedestrians yet the cyclist was jailed and the car driver never even received a driving ban for killing 2 pedestrians.

And further to that case, had the parents informed their insurance company of his recent accident before his drive, if not he was possibly driving without valid insurance.

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
2 likes

Why, both crossed without properly looking?  Both had established themselves on the carriageway? Both crossed on red?

 

Avatar
CyclingInGawler | 5 years ago
0 likes

I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to CyclingInGawler | 5 years ago
1 like

CyclingInGawler wrote:

I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

 

As I said, I don't think there's much of a case against the driver in this one, and would save the outrage for all the cases where it's the driver who is going aginst the red, but I do wonder how what you say relates to the Aliston case.  (Or, as mentioned already, the Brushett case)

Avatar
CyclingInGawler replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 5 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

CyclingInGawler wrote:

I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

 

As I said, I don't think there's much of a case against the driver in this one, and would save the outrage for all the cases where it's the driver who is going aginst the red, but I do wonder how what you say relates to the Aliston case.  (Or, as mentioned already, the Brushett case)

From what I’ve read about both the Aliston and Brushett cases I tend to think they’ve been harshly treated, particularly in Aliston’s case who, as has been said by many before, would probably not have been in the same legal position if he’d been driving and not cycling. But because I don’t agree with the outcomes of those cases I don’t feel that they absolve the cyclist here from behaving in a manner similar to the pedestrians in the cases you mention. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to CyclingInGawler | 5 years ago
3 likes

CyclingInGawler wrote:

I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

I was under the impression that if you even ride a bike AT ALL in South Australia you're not going to last very long...  

Avatar
Wiltsrider | 5 years ago
1 like

Vine is wrong, the cyclist was at fault, the taxi driver (and I can't believe I defending one) did exactly the right thing, slowed to a near stop and used his/her horn to alert the cyclist that they were there.

As for MTB riders jumping the TdF, I hope it stops before some talentless YouTuber trys it and it all ends in tears.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 5 years ago
1 like

The JV incident is a bit meh.  Cyclist was naughty crossing against the lights, taxi driver was a bit selfish and arrogant as motorists almost always are (a courteous person would have stopped despite having priority, and just made a point to scowl or wag a finger at the rule-breaker), but the cyclist was always likely to stop in time.

 

  Hardly worth getting worked up about either way, certainly not when compared to all the times I've known similar things happen when the lights were _red_ for the driver or it's a zebra-crossing.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 5 years ago
0 likes

So was Salih Khater a wanna-be Islamist terrorist?  Or just an apolotical-generically-deranged motorist?  The linked video is missing for me.

The upside of the story though, is that any wanna-be terrorist will hopefully get the message that there's very little point targetting cyclists, because the media won't be interested and the authorities won't care.

Avatar
gmac101 | 5 years ago
0 likes

Pedestrians step out into the road all the time on my commute, dashing for trains or buses, trying to cross between gaps in the motor traffic or just plain step out into the road with out looking because they're on their phone.  You slow or stop as the situation demands, just because you have priority (you do not have any right of way) doesnt mean you musn't do what you can to avoid a  collision.  We all do stupid things from time to time and I know my ass has been saved by observant and careful road users in the past 

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
4 likes

Taxi driver gave a warning, slowed almost to a stop. Yeah, we might believe we would be better drivers in the same circumstances, but enough action was taken to avoid a collision, both parties have a near miss story and hopefully learn something.

Avatar
Wardy74 | 5 years ago
5 likes

Didn't a cyclist recently get found partly responsible for doing the same thing to a pedestrian. It's the same thing here, albeit a more favourable outcome, just that the modes have shifted up one.

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
2 likes

Just daft to use a crossing without looking, more so when the lights are against you.

Avatar
EK Spinner | 5 years ago
0 likes

Had there been a collision there I can't see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to EK Spinner | 5 years ago
1 like
EK Spinner wrote:

Had there been a collision there I can't see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

Actually, just because it's your right of way and the other person is the wrong side of the highway code, that still does not give permission to run the offending party down. You still have to do your best to preserve life and limb. Had the taxi driver ploughed on regardless, asserting right of way instead of trying to avoid a collision, I doubt they would have got off free.
And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to Sriracha | 5 years ago
0 likes
Sriracha wrote:
EK Spinner wrote:

Had there been a collision there I can't see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

Actually, just because it's your right of way and the other person is the wrong side of the highway code, that still does not give permission to run the offending party down. You still have to do your best to preserve life and limb. Had the taxi driver ploughed on regardless, asserting right of way instead of trying to avoid a collision, I doubt they would have got off free.
And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

This is getting into the realms of it being all well and good being right when you're dead. How close would the driver have to have been to the crossing for it to be a bad idea for the cyclist to just fly across? Because I'd say she was pretty close to that line.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
0 likes

vonhelmet wrote:
Sriracha wrote:
EK Spinner wrote:

Had there been a collision there I can't see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

Actually, just because it's your right of way and the other person is the wrong side of the highway code, that still does not give permission to run the offending party down. You still have to do your best to preserve life and limb. Had the taxi driver ploughed on regardless, asserting right of way instead of trying to avoid a collision, I doubt they would have got off free. And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

This is getting into the realms of it being all well and good being right when you're dead. How close would the driver have to have been to the crossing for it to be a bad idea for the cyclist to just fly across? Because I'd say she was pretty close to that line.

This is basic hazard perception, you as the driver present a hazard to the vulnerable road user, this we know as fact. It is not as the driving test makes out hazards that are presented to you as the driver for the most part. In this situation the greater responsibility should be with the operator of the machine that does kill and maim tens of thousands every year, that it doesn't and isn't pressed by gov and police is at the root as to why those numbers are that high.

In this case you assess that the person crossing may well likely not stop (judging their speed and distance to crossing as you might when a motor comes from your left), you can make this assessment well in advance of the crossing. You sound your horn in advance and slow at the same time, let the vulnerable road user cross, this completely removes the hazard you present to them 100%, you cede your priority, this should be basic driving 101.

in these circumstances it is the ONLY option to guarantee no conflict, it's not dangerous for you either on cycle or in a motor to do this in traffic IF you are bothering to be doing your hazard perception/reading the road around you all the time as you should.

This should be the norm not the exception, particularly in a civilised society, we would be massively better as a society if this were the case.

Avatar
morgoth985 replied to Sriracha | 5 years ago
1 like

Sriracha wrote:

. . . And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

In fact I would replace “often” with “pretty much universally” at every roundabout I’ve ever been to.  And whilst I don’t think that really applies here, since the cyclist could have done with looking, the practice of accelerating aggressively to prove a point is appallingly widespread.

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 5 years ago
0 likes

It looked like the cyclist didn't carry out the look before manoeuvre, not a fleeting glance. She was carrying way to much speed to change direction to cross over road. I couldn't see what the green light on the posts were indicating?

My opinion cyclist was reckless with her safety

Avatar
Sriracha | 5 years ago
2 likes

You'd have to assume that it was a case of "sorry, I didn't see you, mate" - perpetrated by the cyclist. Just goes to show, even cyclists can be at fault. As to JV's comment, well, the taxi did slow down to avoid any collision, even if without much grace. JV would do better to keep his powder dry for the myriad cases which better deserve it.

Pages

Latest Comments