Near Miss of the Day 917: “Don’t get angry because a cyclist is faster than you” – Bin lorry driver “using vehicle as a weapon” misses filtering cyclist by “six inches max”

It was made private someone yesterday dunno why.

It is, obviously, for gobs like you - to gob-off willy-nilly.

Does your post help the world go around more smoothly?

Or do you prefer the graunching noise of unpleasantness and un-neighbourly discord?

???

c) Taking the opportunity to note how the different infra designs and road networks around the UK put road users into conflict, sometimes make "doing the wrong thing" easier or even the easiest thing, often do little to mitigate likely consequences etc.  Hopefully asking for better (with a bit of background knowledge) when consultations come around.

d) For anyone who hasn't realised already (possible, even on a cycling forum) to realise just how much our culture - and we ourselves - comes down on the side of motorised road users and certain kinds of behaviour (even where this is at best "contrary to guidelines" and often illegal).  And how poor the "more suitable" provision is for active travel.

e) all of the above?

Perhaps there has been a learning opportunity this time though?  e.g. filtering is legal,  you can sometimes legally go faster in an inside lane than an outside one and you can enter hatched areas (which don't have solid white lines) - but the latter is discouraged ("if necessary")?

Yes this site isn't one which is likely to confront many of its users with radically contrary opinions (that's what the comment are for)!  But then ... that's rather rare.  So what is presented is unlikely to be 50:50 people in cars and people on bikes behaving badly.  And IIRC there have been some examples where people have rightly criticised the cyclist as much if not more than the driver.

chrisonabike wrote:

e) all of the above?

This, although a) is ultimately pointless but also very satisfying.

It's perfectly legal to ride "on the wrong lanes" so long as you don't ignore any accompanying signage, such as a compulsory turn sign.  Hatched areas with broken white borders can also be used.

You're excusing bad driving.  Stop it.

???

What "not so legal" moves are you referring to?

Note that for hatched areas, the rules state (quote in full from here):

Quote:

Diagonal white lines (hatched markings) bounded by broken lines may be used in the centre of the road to separate opposing flows of traffic. They are often provided at junctions to protect traffic turning right. They may also be used on the approach to a central traffic island or the start of a dual carriageway. Hatched markings with a single, broken boundary line may be used at the edge of the road or next to the central reservation of a dual carriageway: the diagonal lines always slope towards the direction of travel. You should not enter any hatched area bounded by a broken line unless it is safe to do so.

The last line is an advisory - "should not ... unless safe".  Not that this makes it right in any way but note a drive also drives over these also at the beginning.

Hatched areas - you get into a debate about what is 'necessary' - does it include filtering for convenience? (I've definitely done it)

The Highway Code wrote:

Rule 130

Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.

[EDIT - why does it always take me 4 attempts to remember the code to end a quote?!]

Agreed, but here it isn't a chevron / solid white line situation (and hence citation - because it is commonly misunderstood).  I don't think I'd use this myself as an "overtaking lane" either but arguably if you do so it is safer and clearer to do so on the outside (drivers' side) than filtering on the inside.

A highway engineer of my aquaintence told me that if a sign tells you to use a lane to go in a certain direction you have to do it, if it's painted on the roa surface it's advisory.

anke2 wrote:

The cyclist did some things that are not clever. Some legal moves (but trusting too much in the reliability of others), some not so legal (riding on the wrong lanes, on hatched areas), and some a little awkward (choice of very busy roads - there must be better side-streets!).

Well, you or I might not have overtaken a line of static traffic.  But "choice of very busy roads - there must be better side-streets"?  Possibly, but... in general the very busy roads are very busy because they are the main / fastest / most direct / only reasonable routes between places *!

For "better side-streets" - I don't know this area but the video appears to start here, going east on the A341, close pass about here.

Over to you to map a convenient cycling route using the quiet side streets there.  Obviously we don't know the whole route the cyclist was travelling so the exercise isn't entirely "reasonable" but going east-west this seems to be the road.

anke2 wrote:

And: From the cyclists perspective, "he had to pass the bin lorry many times, so the lorry could have stayed behind the cyclist". From the lorry drivers perspective, "he had to pass the cyclist many times, so the cyclist could have stayed behind the lorry"...

This is exactly "as I see it" motor-vehicle-centric perspective.  Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.  Unfortunately there is an inherent asymmetry.  Motorists are at zero risk from cyclists, and cyclists going past them closely doesn't make drivers shout in fear.  Having to slow or stop then start again may be irritating to drivers, but it costs a cyclist a lot of physical energy also.  Motor vehicle infra (now "the roads and streets") goes everywhere and is designed for convenient, safe driving rather than the same for cycling.

* That is why proper protected cycle infra is so "contentious" - because cyclists in particular need direct routes (because unlike motor vehicle drivers they physically drive their cycles - drivers just steer!) and many of those direct routes are currently exactly those taken by the busy roads!  Of course it's not the road is intrinsically busy, it's more that lots of people choose to use a very space-inefficient mode of transport to go that way...

chrisonabike wrote:

This is exactly "as I see it" motor-vehicle-centric perspective.  Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.  Unfortunately there is an inherent asymmetry.  Motorists are at zero risk from cyclists, and cyclists going past them closely doesn't make drivers shout in fear. 

This is exactly why I would avoid getting into a "fight for my rights" on the bicycle myself - and why I would advice any cyclist (in the absence of drivers) - to try to understand how drivers feel, what frutrates them (and makes them behave dangerously and erratic, no matter how egocentric their perspective), where they are likely to make a stupid move because they didn't look properly - and how I can avoid situations that are dangerous to myself or other cyclists.

My approach to dealing with motor traffic is not dissimilar to handling a gorilla  - don't trust it, don't insist on your rights, avoid upsetting it, foresee its outbursts. But be firm when you're in a save position (i.e. off the bike). It's a shame we need to treat motorized traffic in this defensive way, but unless very strict psychological testing is introduced for drivers, I wouldn't change this approach.

anke2 wrote:

This is exactly why I would avoid getting into a "fight for my rights" on the bicycle myself - and why I would advice any cyclist (in the absence of drivers) - to try to understand how drivers feel, what frutrates them (and makes them behave dangerously and erratic, no matter how egocentric their perspective), where they are likely to make a stupid move because they didn't look properly - and how I can avoid situations that are dangerous to myself or other cyclists.

My approach to dealing with motor traffic is not dissimilar to handling a gorilla  - don't trust it, don't insist on your rights, avoid upsetting it, foresee its outbursts. But be firm when you're in a save position (i.e. off the bike). It's a shame we need to treat motorized traffic in this defensive way, but unless very strict psychological testing is introduced for drivers, I wouldn't change this approach.

I am mostly with you on this - don't confront or show anything which could be construed as "aggression" or escalating things to someone who's a) pretty invulnerable and b) armed with a lethal weapon.

However there is a problem with what you're suggesting in terms of use.  I may not confront drivers (note this attack wasn't actually provoked by anything more than the cyclist doing something legal - which would have be ignored if done by another motor vehicle, but "cyclist!"...) but I would like to cycle locally and indeed do so.  (I don't own a car and it's much more convenient than walking or taking the bus).  I am very fortunate for the UK in that I've chosen to live somewhere where I can do a lot of my regular distance on completely motor traffic free paths (albeit shared with a few pedestrians).  But I still need to cross roads and indeed cycle along roads.

If the roads were full of gorillas - even very well trained ones that people assured me were "careful and considerate" - I probably wouldn't leave my flat!  I certainly wouldn't be travelling on the roads with the gorillas.  That is the cycling problem.

Because the roads are full of gorillas (or rather - potential gorillas) no-one who is less "into cycling" is likely to cycle.  And indeed it's not very pleasant or convenient to walk around (as mentioned walking back from the shops with all my shopping rather than cycling would be a drama.  Then you have to cross roads at right-angles rather than taking a "desire line", you have to wait for a 30 seconds to minutes at pedestrian crossings etc.).

... so almost everyone makes the sensible choice (for themselves) - and adopts (potential) gorilla transport.  And there's little motivation to make things better (safer AND more convenient) for cyclists because "nobody cycles" - which prompts "and clearly nobody wants to cycle".

anke2 wrote:

This is exactly why I would avoid getting into a "fight for my rights" on the bicycle myself

How is the cyclist in this instance "fighting for their rights"? They made a perfectly legal undertake on the bin lorry; it would have been legal in any case as filtering is permitted for cyclists but in this instance they were in a completely different lane to the bin lorry so and undertake would've been legal even if they were in a car. The cyclist then proceeded safely around the roundabout with the bin lorry following at a considerable distance, but for some reason (I suspect because he had been balked by the blue van that was going right round (at no point have the cyclist held the bin lorry up in any way) and wanted someone to blame) the bin lorry driver decided to take umbrage at the fact that the cyclist was in front of him and so made a ridiculous and dangerous close pass as a punishment even though there was a van stopped directly ahead. There is absolutely no way the cyclist could've anticipated such a psychopathic action. I'm afraid your posts on this matter are absolutely textbook victim blaming.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I'm afraid your posts on this matter are absolutely textbook victim blaming.

Fortunately, there is no victim here - just not very safe cycling and extremely unsafe driving.

There is a significant difference between advising against becoming a victim (before an accident) and victim blaming (after an accident). -- Mixing them up would make any safety training impossible.

You do seem to be making a link though - you seem to be saying "because cyclist did (something which wasn't illegal and isn't obviously unsafe) this explains / justifies / it is karma when a driver deliberately comes close to crashing into them somewhere else".  If the cyclist is "no victim".  (To be fair the police often - but not always - have this interpretation even though this does not accord with the law e.g. "no crime without blood / a body").

With respect to the truck as far as I can see the cyclist does nothing - that you or others have identified - to impede them, threaten them or which is illegal near them.  But the truck does do something which is dangerous and arguably "dangerous driving" in context (although the UK courts would *never* count that - at best it would probably be a lower charge).  In my view in logic and in law the cyclist is a victim.

My personal take - I might not have chosen to overtake the queueing cars as shown.  Would I have filtered up the inside - arguably more dangerous but - maybe - less triggering to drivers?  Maybe; but I've never cycled there and rarely cycle in that much traffic so I can't say I definitely wouldn't.

Would a driver be justified in driving where the cyclist was overtaking?  I think the answer is clearer - no, that wouldn't have been safe (though again arguably legal) because they would have been a threat to / impeding oncoming traffic - because a car is more than a metre wider than a cyclist.

But again ... the cyclist didn't overtake the truck like that.  They passed the truck, staying in the lane which was clearly marked for that direction.  That is fine - the Highway Code says:

Quote:

In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right.

In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right.

Although it does also say:

Quote:

Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Does what the cyclist does at the start count as that?

chrisonabike wrote:

You do seem to be making a link though - you seem to be saying "because cyclist did (something which wasn't illegal and isn't obviously unsafe) this explains / justifies / it is karma when a driver deliberately comes close to crashing into them somewhere else". 

I have never made this link - it's others who claimed I did!

I was just pointing out that the cyclist was doing several things that don't seem very safe. (Filtering on hatched areas where drivers won't expect a cyclist - making them likely to move right erraticaly without looking well. Filtering between cars at the entrance of the roundabout, a situation where drivers sometimes like to "jump" into gaps opening up, witout looking well enough. Undertaking the lorry - possibly in its dead angle and not in a good place if the lorry returns to the left lane, where it should be for driving straight on. Filtering in places where passengers might open doors to jump out. Riding through dense, chaotic traffic that could perhaps be avoided.) 

You're quite right - the cyclist was doing things that don't seem at all safe to most people.  The first one - they were riding a bike in traffic.  Most people just don't - they drive.

What seems "safe" is in the eye of the beholder.  Riding in "primary" is often safest but non-cyclists would immediately decry that as not safe.  Overtaking a car on the right seems more dangerous to many people but it may well be safer - you will be in the driver's mirror.  (Again probably not me in this case - but perhaps if you get to know the road?)

However I have had a couple of friends raise exactly this point on having seen other cyclists do this.  I think this is because in fact people expect "slower" bikes to be on the left - and certainly not overtake cars!

Filtering on the left may be safe when there are no side-roads, and/or traffic is stationary and there are no gaps.  OTOH if traffic isn't moving then pedestrians could be trying to "filter" to cross the road between the vehicles so caution is advised!

As others have said - despite the popular view of "undertaking" what is shown here with the lorry is in fact legal (in two senses) and is normal - you'll see lines of people driving doing so every day.  But you are right to note that many people do in fact hold a different interpretation of the rules to that set out in the highway code.

You are also right about the dense chaotic traffic.  As far as we know this cyclist didn't have to ride there - they could have walked or driven, or never made this journey.  On the other hand in exactly the same sense few of the other people had to drive there either.  Perhaps if we fixed it so there were safe, convenient alternatives, not all of them would have?

anke2 wrote:

Fortunately, there is no victim here - just not very safe cycling and extremely unsafe driving.

So somebody who's been put in fear of their life by the deliberately aggressive and threatening action of another isn't a victim? Right ho. There is absolutely nothing unsafe about the cyclist's riding.

anke2 wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

This is exactly "as I see it" motor-vehicle-centric perspective.  Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.  Unfortunately there is an inherent asymmetry.  Motorists are at zero risk from cyclists, and cyclists going past them closely doesn't make drivers shout in fear. 

This is exactly why I would avoid getting into a "fight for my rights" on the bicycle myself - and why I would advice any cyclist (in the absence of drivers) - to try to understand how drivers feel, what frutrates them (and makes them behave dangerously and erratic, no matter how egocentric their perspective), where they are likely to make a stupid move because they didn't look properly - and how I can avoid situations that are dangerous to myself or other cyclists.

My approach to dealing with motor traffic is not dissimilar to handling a gorilla  - don't trust it, don't insist on your rights, avoid upsetting it, foresee its outbursts. But be firm when you're in a save position (i.e. off the bike). It's a shame we need to treat motorized traffic in this defensive way, but unless very strict psychological testing is introduced for drivers, I wouldn't change this approach.

I think you forgot to say, "It doesn't matter if you're right, if you're dead"

anke2 wrote:

From the lorry drivers perspective, "he had to pass the cyclist many times, so the cyclist could have stayed behind the lorry"...

'staying behind the lorry' basically ignores the reason why the ability to filter is important for a cyclist. 

If the traffic moves faster than the cyclist in between the hold ups (hence the constant overtaking) then the cyclist not filtering means they will simply fall further and further back in the queue and their journey will take longer and longer ... negating all the benefits of travelling by bicycle not by car. 

The fact that drivers don't understand that is a big part of the reason that they get irritate by it happening. 

Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't be safe for the cyclist to ride alongside the bin lorry or indeed any traffic following it, so in order to stay behind the lorry safely they would have to put themselves in primary position, thereby increasing the length of the traffic jam by a good half a car length or more, depending on how far back they wanted to stay for safety reasons. Perhaps there should be a government campaign pointing out that filtering cyclists are doing drivers a double favour, first of all many of them might be in a car otherwise and so increasing the length of traffic jam/delay, and secondly by not staying behind traffic in front and insisting on their legal right to primary position they are also keeping the length of the jam down. Maybe then drivers wouldn't get in such a paddy about it. Won't hold my breath though…

That entire train of logic applies here:

https://youtu.be/S7enDsD5bpc

Saw that one, good job staying calm and explaining stuff rather than shouting the odds.

TBH I tend to avoid confrontation as I find people's learning ability goes down pretty much to zero as soon as they feel they're in "conflict" even if that's through their own choice to pick a fight.

Plus there are a few people who are laughing psychos - don't even seem to be angry but instead find the business of putting others' health and indeed lives at risk fun.  Fortunately I think I've only encountered one or two on the roads but the experiences were memorable...

Quality bit of interaction, love it!