On Thursday we uploaded Near Miss of the Day 815 featuring a clip submitted by a reader which shows the moment an HGV driver close passed him during a bike ride, even with double white lines in the middle of the road and an oncoming driver.
Since then the road.cc inbox has been under siege from furious emails outraged by the disgraceful, dangerous, and downright despicable use of the road on show. No, not the lorry driver putting a vulnerable road user in danger. No, something far worse — in their opinion — the cyclist not using the bike lane…
> Near Miss of the Day 815: “Again and again, drivers don’t seem to get the message”
All spelling, grammar and general incoherence has been edited (don’t shout at us too loudly if anything slips through the net, unless it’s my own, of course!)…
Our most recent thought, sent this morning, claims the cyclist “left the driver with little option but to cross the lines to pass safely, thus breaking the law. There would have been no need for this had the cyclist shown a bit of road sense and used the available road width in a manner conducive to other road users, with a little more wisdom rather than assuming that all must grant his designs on how much of the available space is his to do as he chooses.
“All it takes is two entitled minds to cause a disaster so he is just as guilty as the truck driver of causing this near miss and should be equally held to account.”
Another, claiming to be a professional HGV driver, wrote in: “One question: why is the cyclist not using the designated cycle lane to protect himself from a close pass? If cars and trucks used the cycle lane instead of the road, imagine the carnage! The cycle lanes put in are to protect the cyclist so why do they insist on putting their life in danger by cycling on the road instead of the cycle lane?
“I cycle and also drive HGVs for a living. If a cycle lane is provided then the cyclist should use it. If I drive my truck on the pavement then I can be fined and possibly lose my licence. If a cyclist doesn’t use the cycle lane expect to get a close pass!” Charming…
Next up, not a driver (apparently), but a self-titled “conscientious cyclist”…
“If there is a cycle lane there, use it. Then you would have a right to moan.”
Time to get the expletive alarm out for this next one: “Great video of a daft prick on a bike ignoring the bike lane on the left and then complaining about passing traffic! Total selfish two-wheeled twat!!” Good afternoon to you too…(we’ll delete the part which says whose iPhone it was sent from)…
Right, we’ve got plenty more to get through, time for the quick-fire round…
“Why do you show this without mentioning that the cyclist is deliberately cycling outside of the very wide cycle lane?”
“Yet again we see a cyclist not using a cycle lane on a very dangerous piece of road with double white lines and then moaning when he gets overtaken. Why do cyclists feel they have the right to inconvenience others when making their journeys?”
“If a cycle lane is provided and a cyclist refuses to use it, do you agree they should be subject to legal sanctions — in much the same way as the converse applies to other road users contravening cycle lanes?” In short…no…
“Why put out Near Miss of the Day with a photo of the cyclist on a road when there is a cycle path to the left-hand side of him with no-one on it? So why have I paid my council tax to have these put in if they are not going use them? If they are stupid enough not to use them, then that’s their fault.”
“Mate, he was riding in the carriageway when a cycle lane was clearly marked to his left, you really need to assess the shit you post, honestly. Riding a bike to work is one thing, trying to persecute road users when you have a dedicated cycle lane is another matter, this is ridiculously embarrassing.”
And finally… “Why is this cyclist not in the cycle lane provided?”
Let us answer that one…
> Why don’t cyclists use cycle lanes?
Let’s see what The Highway Code has to say (remember that not all of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements).
As per Rule 61:
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities: Cycle lanes are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings (see Rules 62 and 73) where they make your journey safer and easier. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time. While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them.
The simple answer is that, as anyone with even a cursory experience of UK cycling infrastructure will know, many cycle lanes are a bit rubbish. They can be dangerous, run through car door zones, offer zero protection from passing traffic, become blocked by drivers parking where they shouldn’t, have cracked or loose surfaces, collect puncture-risking debris such as broken glass, cross driveways, stop at junctions, end abruptly, and generally make your journey on two wheels miserable.
In many situations, the safest place to be is on the road where you can control how close you ride to the kerb, and avoid the danger and inconvenience of a bad cycle lane. What’s more, the safer and more convenient option is also perfectly legal, and advised in the Highway Code…
“Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings where they make your journey safer and easier […] cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them.”
‘But what about the cycle lane in the video?’ I hear you ask… ‘What was wrong with that one?’ Clearly the video is just 27 seconds so there might be convenience and safety factors other than what we can see, but while the surface generally looks pretty good (by the low bar of UK cycling infra), this route still crosses driveways where the rider would be more visible on the road and looks like it is the only option for pedestrians walking along the route.
In cases where the cycle lane is, in fact, a shared-use path and also used by dog walkers, families, children, disabled people and the elderly, the safer place for a confident bike rider is often the road. By the end of the video we see the path narrow to a section wide enough for a single pedestrian, lined with a wall and dotted with lampposts.
Furthermore, at the point where the close pass is made, the cycle lane ends. Often the safest place for everyone — for pedestrians potentially using the shared-use path, the rider himself, and drivers — is for the cyclist to ride on the road. That requires asking for a bit of patience when overtaking, but if it prevents a cyclist — a father, daughter, sister, friend, colleague — being injured or worse, is that really too much to ask?
EDIT: The road.cc reader who submitted the footage got in touch with a bit more info about the specifics of the shared-use path…
Bloody hell. That one got a response!
If you go on Google Maps 88 A3100, this is where the incident occurred.
The pass wasn’t particularly close, as the police officer implies, but the manner of driving is downright dangerous.The shared cycle path (it’s NOT a cycle lane) is not very well marked, and this was my first time on the road having just dropped my van off for a service. Ooer… A van driver. I know…
The entry point to the shared cycle path is badly marked, and there is one sprayed on bike for the whole of its 300m length. Plus once you’ve gone past the dropped kerb to get onto the pavement, you can’t get on it. Not that you would, as it’s narrow and on a blind bend. If there was another bike or pushchair coming the other way, I’d have had to get back on the road to get past.
It’s terrible cycling infrastructure, but either way it’s still a 30mph limit with double whites and SLOW signs for a reason, that the HGV driver chose to ignore.
64 thoughts on “Why isn’t that cyclist in the cycle lane? Angry drivers of the internet fume about NMoTD 815”
Quote:
Erm… Legally, the full width of the lane is exactly his to do with as he chooses.
Quote:
Generally, no they’re not. They’re put there to get bicycles “out of the way” so that poor beleagured motorists aren’t slowed down by them.
OK, I’m done now (for my
OK, I’m done now (for my blood pressure).
I’ll be here all week!
Not the same thing at all. Closer analogy is saying ‘if I drive my HGV along this road instead of that road then I can be fined…’ And that (almost) never happens.
Or my School Run Mum who blew
Or my School Run Mum who blew her top because cyclists were in her way on a narrow country lane when she had a faster route on an A road specially built for her journey between two towns.
“By the end of the video we
“By the end of the video we see the path narrow to a section wide enough for a single pedestrian, lined with a wall and dotted with lampposts.”
At 22 seconds, the cycle lane ends with an arrow pointing the cyclist to the road.
I bet if you posted a video
I bet if you posted a video of a cyclist riding on that cycle lane, but stopped it before the painted bike appeared, then all the same commenters would complain about the cyclist riding on the pavement.
I bet if you had a video of
I bet if you had a video of someone riding on the shared path with a pedestrian walking ahead, another cyclist oncoming and the original cyclist forced his way past at speed without slowing down and putting the other two shared path users in danger, they would be people stating the cyclist should be imprisioned (or hung).
Because most of us drive.
Because most of us drive.
Drivers don’t seem to be able to stick to the inside lane on the motorway.
Same thing innit.
😉
Yes, there were many Lane 3
Yes, there were many Lane 3 zombies on the M25 last night.
A lot of them don’t always
A lot of them don’t always use those motorways we have all paid a fortune for.
Quote:
And in fact on the pavement markings indicating that the cycle lane ends and that cyclists should return to the road, so the cyclist has antcipated the end of the lane by about fifty yards.
I would never leave the
I would never leave the safety of the cycle lane at roads where great speed differences between cyclists and motor vehicles exist. There may be some cycle lanes that are poor quality, but I mostly prefer them and this particular one isn’t that bad, especially when this guy isn’t going that fast. For instance there is one road that I take the cycle lane when uphill but on downhill at this 20mph road I prefer the main road, since it is faster, practically have the same speed with cars and safer at junctions.
10 yards further on you would
10 yards further on you would have had to leave the shared path as it dumps you back into the same road, with the same climb, solid white lines and blind bend.
Of course, I would have to
Of course, I would have to join the same road, but I would have been spared that nasty overtake. We have to respect statistics.
We cannot be the entire time in cycle lanes, but at least try to when it is available. Unless you dream of becoming a martyr.
All very well if the cycle
All very well if the cycle lane had been a model one.
As it is, I could see 2 driveways. This is not risk free. You are subject to drivers going in or out of those driveways without care. Riding on the road can spare you that.
And why would the overtake
And why would the overtake have been any different if all vehicles were scooted up the road 10 more yards. Cyclist would not have had a cycle lane to use if they wanted to, road still had double solid lines and lorry would have still not had full visibility of the car before attempting the disgraceful manouvre at speed. The presence of the SHARED PATH (look up the difference) is a total red herring here for some.
I would much rather motorists
I would much rather motorists be educated properly on how to share roads with other users. If this means at the very least a module on how to interact with vulnerable road users which has to be passed then it needs to be done. I know in Germany you need to pass a first aid module as part of your test.
Well I would like cycle lanes
Well I would like cycle lanes with free ice cream dispensers every 100m and Mother Theresa’s grandaughter training other drivers. But I can’t have it, at least for now.
It is a good thing demanding and doing all the necessary action to have better quality in everything. But until this happens we have to adjust. If this guy had been overtaken a little closer he might had been killed.
Some say “Yes leaving cycling lane is dangerous, but the junctions in cycle path can be more dangerous”. Well maybe, but in my own opinion you can somehow control risk at junctions, while a close pass that may become a runover you have absolutely no control over it, unless you plan to spend half your life trying to see through a rattling mirror you bought.
cyclisto wrote:
I don’t dream of becoming a martyr, I dream of thinking “I told them so”.
(…with my own take on cycling continuing to be irrelevant to the majority, me just being a less conspicuous minority.)
Where was the drop kerb to
Where was the drop kerb to allow him to join the cycle path?
There is no drop kerb at the
There is no drop kerb at the end of the shared path. It just stops after a roadway crosses the path. You are expected to jump off the kerb to rejoin the road.
Looks like it is very shallow
Looks like it is very shallow but you’d have to know that before you got to it.
Either way trying to rejoin is not going to be a great experience and possibly worse than already being in the road.
That’s a very helpful
That’s a very helpful photograph, thanks.
I was thinking about this NMOTD over the weekend and was going to ask why the cyclist *didn’t* use the lane, so I’m glad this article appeared. I don’t get it – if a lane was necessary where the footage was taken, why is it not necessary on the stretch of road we see between where the picture is taken and where the lorry currently is? Is it as simple as “yes, we agree that bit’s not safe either but it would cost a fortune to widen the road, so take your chances?”
It seems to be a requirement
It seems to be a requirement of highway engineers that when they are designing cycle paths that there is ample provision where there is no help, but when the going gets tough, the cyclist is left to fight it out with drivers.
Meriden has an exceptional example though:
158 B4104
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BcDkeHSy6E6KzXPG8
Note the bizarre paintwork and the cyclist is expected to stop – why isn’t the give way for motorists in this residential and shopping area. If you follow the road, you will see that the cycle lane has been abandoned to allow what is actually a 3 lane wide road to ensure that motorists don’t hold each other up turning into residential streets. So, there was room for a cycle lane without cyclists inconveniencing motorists, but motorists might inconvenience other motorists so cycling comes last.
I suspect the council were
I suspect the council were looking for getting some subsidy by hitting “miles of cycling paths created” target.
“Do we have pavements that are a metre and half wide?”
“In some cases yes”,
“Then order some blue signs and lets slap some paint on there and that is another 500yards we can claim”.
“But what about the next section, the road is just as bad and now we are dumping cyclists onto it from a standing start if they need to wait for traffic”
“But then we will have to spend real money and actually close the road for the work to be done, can’t be having that. They will be alright, there are solid white lines on the road so traffic will know it is not the right area to speed anyway”.
panda wrote:
Yes; are you new to this?
It’s nothing to do with making cycling safer, and all to do with ticking the cycle provision box on the government funding form. They probably got £10k for those dabs of white paint.
If only the cyclist had a
If only the cyclist had a numberplate the close pass wouldn’t have happened.
Sick of people regurgitating
Sick of people regurgitating this. Shapps discussed exploring enforcing law more effectively on cyclists that break it. As quoted in a cycling article in the Guardian today: “a review of insurance and how you actually track cyclists who do break the laws”.
Never at any point did he ask for law to have insurance and number plates. Muppets like you just pour fuel on the fire and do the anti cycling lobbies work for them!
Here is what Shapps told the
Here is what Shapps told the Mail in the front-page article that kicked all this off a fortnight ago:
He absolutely did raise the issue of number plates and insurance, and no amou t of backtracking on his part or clarification from the DfT can change that.
I think you need to put your
I think you need to put your irony filter on
Muppets like Grant Four-Names
Muppets like Grant Four-Names who decided to pander to the DM anti cycling nutters by insinuating he might be looking at this, enough for them to run a FRONT PAGE headline stating that and getting other cyclists abused in the days afterwards. Yet it is oldridgeback who gets your ire?
eermm maybe check the post
eermm maybe check the post for sarcasm before going off on one? Especially since you’re the new one here compared to ORB.
Where’s the wine geek gone?
Where’s the wine geek gone?
I’m surprised you didn’t put
I’m surprised you didn’t put the quote on from 815 from “notblindingbycyclistsbs” as well.
I did mention early in the comments that I wonder how many drivers would have noticed the cycle lane ended, 20 yards further on, the same pass would have happened by the same driver and potentially just as dangerous for oncoming vehicles and the cyclist, and there is no SHARED PATH, NOT CYCLEPATH excuse for the shit driving from shit drivers.
Meh, ive seen loads of these
Meh, ive seen loads of these “Cycle lanes” that are on raised pavements and have one entrance ramp that isnt clearly sign posted.
This is one such path,
Its also clearly marked as cyclists only, yet tons of times people have been seen walking on it
Dbloke wrote:
Surely that can’t be the entry ramp? How, exactly, are you supposed to get on it if there is a motor vehicle pulled up to the give way line, obstructing both the view and the entry? Also, if you entered it as a vehicle was approaching the give way line and they struck you, who’s fault would it be?
As per my comment on the
As per my comment on the previous article, it’s not a dedicated cycle lane, it’s a shared use path.
I ride this route regularly and the path is not suitable for cycling, with the exception of small children acompanied by adults on foot. It’s too narrow for both cyclists and pedestrians to safely coexist and the surface of the path is extremely poor and not suitable for road bikes.
This is typical of the cycling infrastructure in the Guildford area, with the vast majority being wholly unsuitable and dangerous. It’s a box ticking exercise for the council so they can say that they have done “something” to get the grant money.
And this is why councils
And this is why councils should have significant liability for any cyclist related incident where cycling infra is well below design guidelines. I suspect we could even just apply it to guidelines when infra was built (can no longer find gov standards from 1989 which state one way cycle lane should be 2m wide (with 1.5m permitted in limited circumstances))
Should also be able to file insurance claims for alarm/distress caused by stuff like this. If the HGV insurer and council had a 50:50 split of a few £k for alarm/distress caused maybe driving would improve and infra would be built to standard…
I was thinking similar the
I was thinking similar the other day. When the council or the utilities are working on the road they must do a risk assessment to protect their workers that might be working close to the carriageway. This often ends up with traffic lights or even road closures that will often inconvenience drivers. Why wouldn’t they carry out similar risk assessments for all road users and push through those measures even if some might find it inconvenient.
Whilst it isn’t the best of
Whilst it isn’t the best of cycle lanes, I would have used it rather than cycle on a road with a double unbroken line. There are times when descretion is the better part of valour!
And what would you have done
And what would you have done 20 yards further on when it would have been illegal to cycle there, and trucks wouldn’t give people any space at all because “you are on the pavement”.
I have walked on similar narrow pavements and actually been caught a glancing blow from a passing vans wing mirror before now.
It’s an appalling piece of
It’s an appalling piece of cycle infrastructure that leads from Godalming through the Artington Park and Ride into Guildford on the A3100.
You are constantly expected to go from the shared use footpath, to the road, off the road, back into the road etc. You have to cross road junctions from the left that do not give priority to those using the path. The footpath is in a poor condition (much worse than the road) and it is too narrow to safely pass a pedestrian without stopping. The on-road painted cycle lane section is barely wide enough to contain a bike and no way near wide enough to allow cars to safely overtake.
didsthewinegeek wrote:
Even with it dumping you back into the flow of traffic on a hill.
yes but it’s not a cycle lane
yes but it’s not a cycle lane
According to the AA over 1 in
According to the AA over 1 in 40 motorists drive without a license.
Also 1 in 12 motorists are driving around with false number plates that are not registered to the driver of the car (cloned).
All these people want to complain about is a cyclist doing absolutely nothing wrong as far as the law is concerned.
In my experience these complaining types are simply just jealous because they are not cabable of riding a bike, it really is as simple as that.
yupiteru wrote:
I’d like to see your source for that statement. Frankly I dont believe it.
I agree seems unlikely that
I agree seems unlikely that clone plates are a bigger issue than driving without a license (or insurance).
googling brings up https:/
googling brings up https://www.primoregistrations.co.uk/article/view/cloned-car-registrations-are-more-common-than-you-think
From the figures given in the
From the figures given in the article, it’s less than 5% or 1 in 20, not 1 in 12. Neither does it mention how they arrived at those figures, they are just stated as fact. Without supporting evidence, they are suspect.
I don’t know this area, but
I don’t know this area, but from the video, plainly I would not use that path at that point, given the abrubt way it ends and spills onto the road… at the moment the close pass was taking place.
Ignorance of the Highway code
Ignorance of the Highway code in not knowing that cyclists don’t have to use any cycle infrastructure and have many legitimate reasons to take space on the road is one thing, but converting that misunderstanding into “I’ll teach that stupid cyclist a lesson” and putting someone’s life at risk using a motor vehicle as a weapon of intimidation is quite another.
Boo hoo for the poor cyclist,
Boo hoo for the poor cyclist, you ride on footpaths, through red lights, on pavements, through pedestrian areas. You ride without lights etc etc etc etc, and all you can do is moan about how people don’t give you 10 metres of space when passing. Use the bike lanes or get a car.
You are an exceptionally
You are an exceptionally ignorant and unoriginal troll. Frankly we are used to far better around here.
I was going to respond with
I was going to respond with something about your poorly researched sweeping generalisations similar examples of which could be provided for any group of road users, and ill thought out advice (what to do where there is no bike lane? or shared use death trap in this example.)
Instead, I fart in the general direction of the bridge you crawled out from.
And tell me where this
And tell me where this cyclist did any of the things you moaned about? And again, that is not a bike lane. He would be on what you would call a pavement and being shouted at by the likes of you for being on it. I’ve seen cars ride on footpaths, pavements and through red lights. I have even seen them go down train lines. Should they get another car?
And good job the cyclist who supposedly glanced your mobility scooter wasn’t in a car as you wouldn’t be here to post. Had any close calls with pedestrians when weaving around them in your heavy chariot?
Is that all you can come up
Is that all you can come up with after 2 days ?
Do you have a car?
No – they (claim to) have a
No – they (claim to) have a mobility scooter, IIRC.
NotBlindedByCyclistsBS wrote:
Ride on footpaths? No, never.
Through red lights? No, never.
On pavements, through pedestrian areas? Define ‘pavement’ and ‘pedestrian areas’. Do you mean shared-use areas where cyclists are legally allowed to ride anyway? If not, how is that different from footpaths?
Ride without lights? Definitely, during the daytime when lights are not legally required.
So am I allowed to claim my 10 metres of passing space now?
😀
Studies have shown motorists
Studies have shown motorists on average are breaking more laws than cyclist s, and being tons of heavy metal are incredibly more dangerous
So you agree that more
So you agree that more vulnerable modes of travel require adequate protection from other transport vehicles?
If cyclists are as delinquent as you make out, tell me how a picture of a bicycle painted on a footpath protects pedestrians? Would you prefer more of the budget and real estate be dedicated to segregated paths, cycleways, and public transport lanes that are actually fit for purpose? Oops, no room left for personal cars, oh well, KSI collisions will drop right off.
Question for the road.cc team
Question for the road.cc team: Do you normally get this level of vitriol or is this unusual? I can’t imagine it’s normal for so many trolls to simply stumble across this article by accident and feel compelled to contact you directly about it, but maybe I am being naive in that assumption. Or is it more likely this story been shared to some trolling website and a pile on deliberately encouraged?
On that Book of Face, Road.cc
On that Book of Face, Road.cc’s posts are usually leapt on by the Angry Drivist Lobby almost immediately. I think Zuckerberg’s algorithm is either putting “road” and “I luv Kars innit” together (2+2=9) and filling their feeds with wholesome cycling related content, OR it actually works as designed & is feeding their secret lycra fetish.
Either way, none of them reads an article (or apparently has figured out that it’s linked to a cycling related site) just reacts to the headline in wholly predictable fashion. Wouldn’t be at all surprised if that’s how they’ve found their way here now – one of them must have accidentally clicked on the link to the actual article & told their friends about the sea of leftie, tree-hugging, marxist militant cyclist, anti-driving, LTN loving filth that they can get off on here.
“sea of leftie, tree-hugging,
“sea of leftie, tree-hugging, marxist militant cyclist, anti-driving, LTN loving filth”
Can I have that on a T shirt please?