“I’m a 60-foot lorry… it’s easier for you to go back as a pushbike”: Countryside stand-off between cyclist and driver turns heated; Carrera Jeans or Quick-Step 2.0? Alpecin-Deceuninck brings double-denim kit to the peloton + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Park rat-run to remain closed to drivers to promote cycling, following trial made controversial by "vocal minority who drive straight through the park"
BCP Council has admitted the response was “much bigger than expected” after it closed a rat-run through a heritage listed park to prevent drivers using the route as a cut-through, in a bid to promote cycling and walking and tackle air and noise pollution, but has committed to keeping the road closure in place now the trial period has ended and more than 5,000 consultation responses are being considered.
And while the council has not shut the route through Poole Park, a 110-acre green space in the Dorset town, permanently — a period of analysis to “understand every piece of feedback and insight on either side of the debate” will follow, potentially with an “open public meeting” — the road, used as a rat-run near Sandbanks, one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the country, to remain closed to drivers in the meantime now the four-week trial period has ended.
Hands up if you want to see Drum & Bass On The Bike back in 2024!
After an incredible year of entertaining cyclists with sick tunes, and everyone leaving glowing reviews of the event, describing it as “mind-blowing”, “massive”, “crazy” and “immense”, DJ Dom Whitting is looking to bring Drum and Bass On The Bike ride back in 2024. I can’t say I’m not chuffed!
Who’s Ready For Drum & Bass On The Bike 2024?! SHOW ME A SIGN!! pic.twitter.com/OOw7TC5tcR
— Domonic (@domwhiting) February 15, 2024
> Joining Dom Whiting for a Drum & Bass On The Bike ride – a glorious afternoon in every sense
Conservative politician makes the case against low-traffic neighbourhoods by *checks notes* showing how safe and vibrant they are
Man campaigning against better streets for people stands in a safe and vibrant street made possible by motor traffic reduction. Astonishing. https://t.co/OE1NNbzs7R
— The Ranty Highwayman (@RantyHighwayman) February 15, 2024
London boroughs accused of “failing cyclists and pedestrians” as report shows no imminent funding plans for cycleways or safer streets
This news takes us to the London borough of Croydon, with a recent report by London Assembly Member, Mayoral Candidate and active travel campaigner Sian Berry revealing that there was a “looming delivery gap” in terms of the number of bus lanes, cycle lanes, safer streets and bike storage facilities being installed by the capital’s boroughs.
Of the many boroughs criticised in the report, the most scathing critiques were reserved for Lewisham, Brent, Croydon, Greenwich and Kingston, which stood out as the ones to not have made funding bids for any greater cycle infrastructure, reports The Standard.
Every Londoner in every borough deserves to live in a community with decent bus lanes, secure cycle parking, and safe streets to walk or wheel.
My new report lays out how far behind his promises the Mayor has fallen, and why it’s in his power to fix it.https://t.co/h8S2IqtEBW— Sian Berry (@sianberry) February 12, 2024
Berry’s report found that outer London boroughs received 82 per cent of what they sought from the mayor, while inner London boroughs received 52 per cent. This was in part because TfL wanted to improve alternatives to the car in the suburbs – but was also a reflection of a “lack of ambition” from outer London boroughs to seek investment.
She said that Mr Khan had failed to use powers available to him to compel boroughs to follow his transport strategy, adding that the mayor needed an “early revision” of his transport strategy.
Last week TfL announced that £80.4m would be available for borough schemes in 2024/25, with £41m already earmarked for outer London and £25m for inner London.
These include 150 new or upgraded pedestrian crossings, 125 “bus priority” schemes including new bus lanes, including on Superloop routes, and 20mph limits on roads in Barnet, Brent, Harrow, Redbridge, Waltham Forest Enfield and Richmond.
The reviews have started creeping in for Alpecin's denim kit... Spoiler: They are not favourable (but quite amusing)
It pains, it pains so much! Why isn’t every single fan agreeing with me in recognising the true greatness of this gorgeous, groundbreaking, fashionable and nostalgic at the same time double-denim Alpecin-Deceuninck kit?
Initial reviews in the echo chamber of cycling Twitter have not been very favourable to this kit, people have pointed it to be “pointless”…
While a ‘denim look’ isn’t exactly original, it’s a nice look. But what do team & sponsors have to do with jeans?
It was obvious at Carrera Jeans, but Alpecin-Deceuninck is adorning themselves with borrowed plumes here
7/10 design, 0/10 logic, 3.5/10 overall#LukasJudgesJerseys pic.twitter.com/kuV5NdeVO7— Lukas Knöfler 💙💛 (@lukascph) February 15, 2024
That looks like one of these special jerseys a team (in that case Quickstep) would bring for the tour. Only that in this case, the “original jersey” will still be worn by another team. 🤦🏻♂️😂
— Bene (Friedhelm SZN) (@lkjhgfpou) February 15, 2024
Richard Dawson wrote on Twitter: “Considering that the images of their new kit is trending, I would say it has been extremely successful & a very good idea!” I mean as they say, any publicity is good publicity? A few also felt sorry for the commentators who now have the tough task of distinguishing the Alpecin riders from the Quick-Step ones in the peloton (I can get behind this take).
So…
Ignoring the fact that Alpecin has no Canadians in their squad to merit a Canada Tux moment here…This is like a bad Eurodance remix of the Carrera kit. It’s loud, feels empty and one-dimensional and has no commitment to the look and zero understanding of the original… pic.twitter.com/iKBSjCMSIH
— Stine Momo (DJ Momo/Momo Lamarr)❤️🔥 (@stinemomo) February 15, 2024
Ouch, that’s a little too harsh in my opinion! Anyway, here are my two favourite comments from Twitter that made me smile (social media makes you smile, shocking!)
The only good thing about this is that a certain 69 year old Belgium team manager is freaking out.
— DT K371 (@K371Dt) February 15, 2024
Now we know the real reason MvdP was so keen to win the Worlds last year.
— Colin Lynch PLY (@FormerTTchamp) February 15, 2024
Only one way to settle this: Have your say on Alpecin-Deceunick's double-denim kit!
Stage two of Vuelta a Andalucia Ruta del Sol also called off due to farmer protests
Just a day after the opening stage of the Spanish five-day stage race was cancelled, it’s now revealed that the second stage has also called off due to farmer protests, with the rest of the stage routes also being amended.
Two weeks ago, the opening stage of the Etoile de Bessèges was also cancelled for the same reason.
🚨 COMUNICADO OFICIAL VUELTA ANDALUCÍA 2024#70RdS #UCIProSeries #AIOCC pic.twitter.com/0bxcMQNL7O
— Vuelta a Andalucía (@VCANDALUCIA) February 14, 2024
The Vuelta a Andalucia is now set to start on Friday with a 5km time trial substituted in for the previously planned 161km route, before an abbreviated 100km summit finish on Saturday, according to Het Nieuwsblad
As of now, the last stage seems to stay the same as planned, a 168km route from Benahavís to La Línea de la Concepción, however, that could also subject to change as the protests, which have agitated farmers in several parts of Europe, continue to develop.
A statement released by the race organisers said: “The Vuelta a Andalucia will resume Friday with a time trial in Alcaudete and will conclude next Sunday.
“Due to the inability to count on state security members, the organisation had to reduce the race to three stages, and partly modify the route of the stages. We are waiting at this time for the problems arising from agricultural and transport claims in Spain to be resolved.”
Some good news: All but one of the low-traffic neighbourhoods in Croydon to be made permanent
London borough of Croydon to make most of its LTNs permanent. Council (which is now Tory-run) cites evidence of road safety benefits, air quality benefits, and better conditions for vulnerable road users https://t.co/x8FXJ64Mgg pic.twitter.com/T1WjaU1Q5X
— Jon Stone (@joncstone) February 15, 2024
Under-fire council admits "discriminatory" cycle route barriers were installed without equality impact assessment
Bolton Council, which has been criticised for installing “discriminatory” barriers on a cycling and walking route, apparently to prevent anti-social behaviour, has admitted no equality impact assessment was carried out pre-installation but believes it has still acted in accordance with design guidance.
“The real issue is that the barriers discriminate against people who use many types of cycle, including adapted cycles for users with disabilities, and the council’s failure to follow due process,” Dr Grahame Cooper, a cyclist and Bolton Active Travel Forum Technical Review Group member, told road.cc.
> Read more: Under-fire council admits “discriminatory” cycle route barriers were installed without equality impact assessment
"Flagship cycling route, designed to be underwater for two months of the year"
We all know the state of cycling routes in the UK isn’t something to be gloat over, and over the years road.cc has cheekily pointed at the lot, hoping to draw attention and hold the naughty councils responsible for the caretaking to account. But there are times when we come across roads that are simply embarassing, so poor that we are at a loss of words.
Case in point, this route from Cambridgeshire, connecting Swavesey and St Ives and passing through a couple of lakes and the river Great Ouse, part of the National Cycling Network 51. However, despite all that, the route has been underwater and constantly flooded since December!
I don’t even have something interesting to comment, other than that this is shambolic.
This was and remains @cambscc flagship cycle route. Designed to be under water for two months of the year. I kid you not. This is, according to them, fine. https://t.co/JhIxRSdUd6
— Cab (https://toot.bike/@cabd) #FBPE #NAFO (@gnomeicide) February 15, 2024
Reactions galore as stand-off between cyclist and lorry driver divides opinion (quite sharply may I add)
The topic was quite touchy to begin with, with some calling in sensibility and common sense into question, others clamouring about the validity and legality of the dilemma. And rightfully so, it’s become a topic that has drawn a deep distinction of reactions.
Quite a few interesting ones from Facebook:
Rob Cockburn: “If the story is true then this is a classic case of a jumped up cyclist wanting to prove a point, rather than use common sense. As a cyclist myself it’s these kind of cyclists that give the rest (Majority) of us a bad name.”
Paul Golding: “Common sense dictates that it’s far easier for the cyclist to back up a bit, and quicker. As a cyclist myself I’ve been in similar situations and have used common sense and moved myself out of the way.”
Nicholas Gill: “A lot of talk about common sense here without mentioning that it’s also common sense not ro attempt to drive a 44 ton HGV down a road marked “Unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles”!”
Ben Williams: “Is there an equivalent truck drivers site whete they are all saying “this truck driver gives us all a bad name”? . I doubt it so please stop saying it.”
Mick Unsworth: “As a cyclist, she is correct that she has right of way, but a bit of common sense would help. She should have stopped a soon as he saw the lorry and looked for a gap or passing space. I often climb a hedge or find a gateway to let lorries and tractors pass.”
And then some from road.cc live blog readers:
cyclisto: “I have confronted numerous drivers with numerous ways and numerous results when they park on the bicycle lane, but here I would just ride back. I have driven big vehicles, (fortunately not big as that) and have sat in a lorry’s passenger’s seat reversing in a narrow road (no space to reverse) where the whole experience took a few hours, so I can feel empathy for the driver.
Besides not sure what happens in UK driving law, but where I am now when two vehicles get stuck, the smaller has to reverse, so in this case where we have a huge lorry (with a seemingly not very experienced driver) and a bicycle it just seems ridiculous that the cyclist still argues.
The road is marked as unsuitable but heavy vehicles are not explicitly prohibited.”
Hirsuite: “I can’t help feeling there must be a slightly better solution than using a 60′ foot lorry on a narrow lane where you can’t reverse. What is she going to do if there is a tree down ? It’s not like we haven’t had various storms in the last 2 or 3 months.”
mitsky: “Cyclists v Lorry Driver.
The cyclist could have been very petty and slowly walked the bike back to a wider spot in the road.
Even at walking speed, the lorry driver would likely not have complained as the alternative was to try to reverse the lorry.
The cyclist could have been slow enough to do it so that another motor vehicle driver ended up facing the lorry…
Not saying I would do it myself… maybe.
The lorry driver needs to know what vehicle is appropriate for that type of road.:
Benthic: ““…it’s easier for you to go back as a pushbike…”
Lorries have a reverse gear. Bicycles do not.”
It’s in the (Carrera) Jeans… Alpecin-Deceuninck brings double-denim to the peloton — or is it just Quick-Step 2.0?
What date is it? Surely not April 1st?
Or more like, what decade is it? Surely not the 90s?
Because the peloton has been done a massive favour (as most of us here at road.cc towers) by Alpecin-Deceuninck, with the Belgian team releasing its new 2024 “double-denim” kit, alongside a new denim-themed logo. It’s safe to say, we are all as surprised as we are pleased.
Work hard, play hard! Our frame of mind for 2024! 🤩
Say 👋 to our new denim kit, representing our team’s perspective for 2024: daring to stand out, while keeping our feet on the ground. Working hard together, while having fun together. pic.twitter.com/MrfNhqFv3M
— Alpecin-Deceuninck Cycling Team (@AlpecinDCK) February 15, 2024
The team, so far racing with its previous season’s kit, has announced today that it will be sporting the brand-new jersey at the UAE Tour, with young sprinter Kaden Groves as the team leader.
The team added: “The denim kit is representing our team’s perspective for 2024: daring to stand out, while keeping our feet on the ground. Working hard together, while having fun together. Because jeans are great for any occasion, no?”
Yes, of course! After all, who can forget the iconic look sported by Carrera Jeans in the late 80s and early 90s, one of them being an actual double-denim training kit, all the while winning the Tour and Giro with Stephen Roche, while Chiappucci came up with a string of second-placed finishes at the Giro and Tour (only to be beaten by Greg LeMond and Miguel Induráin, mind you). And coming up to 20 years on Marco Pantani’s death, in my headcanon this is definitely a tribute to Il Pirata.
Double denim, double fun! 😎 Explore the @AlpecinDCK cycling clothing line with a full denim print – embracing the trend of the season!
🛒 PRE-ORDER now, dispatch starting March 21. Join the #denimondenim revolution and ride in style.https://t.co/F9qJnfSIFr#KalasSportswear pic.twitter.com/1gPOtIiDJa
— Kalas Sportswear (@Kalas_cc) February 15, 2024
The more I look at it, the more I love it!
But of course, this isn’t the first time a team has tried to force a denim-revival in the peloton in modern times. Just last year, AG2R Citroën raced the Strade-Bianche in denim bib shorts, plodding along the Tuscan countryside in an interesting shade of denim, developed by its kit partner Rosti. It goes without saying, fans were divided.
It’s only a shame that it’s going to be a nightmare for fans to tell Alpecin and Quick-Step apart in the peloton, because without my glasses on (or maybe after a couple of pints), I wouldn’t be able to do so.
PS. Don’t tell anyone, but your favourite Northern Irish live blogger Ryan had been struggling to find a pair of Carrera Jeans denim bib shorts to gift his dad for his 60th, but with this new Alpecin kit, he might be having second thoughts… Alpecin, if you’re reading this, you know what to send to who!
“I’m a 60-foot lorry… It’s easier for you to go back as a pushbike”: Countryside stand-off between cyclist and driver turns heated
You’ve heard of Mexican stand-offs, now get ready for a countryside stand-off, between a cyclist and a lorry driver over who should reverse to allow space for the other to pass… Sorry, that sounded way more exciting in my head.
As bizarre as that sounds (almost like a knockoff Michael Mann or Quentin Tarantino thriller), on the narrow, country roads of Hampshire an impassé so deadlocked that neither party could give an inch took place, with this video of a lorry driver asking a cyclist to reverse to allow her to pass doing the rounds on social media. Her claim? That it would be “easier for you to go back as a pushbike, than it would be for me as a 60-foot lorry”.
This lorry literally needs to reverse 50ft and then the cyclist can pass, but no apparently it is the cyclist that must go all the way back.pic.twitter.com/cjvLjN8iQv
— BladeoftheSun (@BladeoftheS) February 13, 2024
First off, I am instantly suspicious about someone who uses the word pushbike unironically. Secondly, I am even sceptical about someone who phrases things like ‘you’re a pushbike’ and ‘I’m a lorry’.
But my dubious thoughts aside, the cyclist seems to have turned down the driver’s request/command (it’s a little difficult for me to judge by the tone), and asks her instead: “Where am I supposed to go?”
The driver replies, “To a wide bit! I can see a bit just three…”, when the cyclist interjects: “I can see a wide bit over there!”, pointing to behind the truck.
“You think it’s easier for me to reverse? I’m 60-foot long and the same width as this road as you can see by the fact that you can see I’m in the hedge on both sides,” the driver says, hastily turning the camera the other way round to show a glimpse of the lorry barely managing to fit on the unpaved lane, with the side-view mirrors grazing the hedges.
The cyclist asks, “Why should I turn around and go back?”, to which the driver replies: “Well surely it’s easier for you to go back as a pushback than for me as a 60-foot lorry.”
The cyclist then tells the driver that she “shouldn’t be down here anyway”, to which the driver replies saying that she’s going to her field, before the clip cuts off abruptly, leaving us wanting a resolution to the thrilling stand-off (with that ending, it seems more of a Chris Nolan movie).
Incidentally, the video has drawn varied reaction on this lovely little thing called social media. While some believe that the cyclist had the right of way and that the lorry driver should pick a road better suited to accommodate the vehicle, others have argued that it would indeed be easier for the cyclist to give way, and that reversing the lorry with the mirrors being blocked by the hedges would be dangerous.
LOL, if the cyclist is up herself then so is the driver. They’re both arguing about exactly the same thing, neither of them has anywhere to go.
— Jon (@Jontafkasi) February 13, 2024
One person, who claimed to be a cyclist said that they’d be “quite happy to ride back and find a wider section for the truck to pass”, with this alternative being “far easier and quicker”. Another person agreed, saying they would avoid the confrontation in a first place and leave everyone a little less annoyed.
Some were quite critical of the lorry driver, while others defended the lorry driver wholeheartedly. A Twitter user said: “What a lovely sounding lorry driver! What on earth is she doing on a single track lane in a 44 ton HGV”, while another reply said: “News to a few on here wondering why a lorry goes down tracks. It’s called agriculture. Farmers and horse owners need access to take feed/equipment/livestock down them.”
There were obviously a few replies spewing blatant anti-cycling vitriol, but I think we can do without mentioning them on the live blog this beautiful Thursday, can’t we?
In the meantime, I think this post might sum the whole faff up?
There’s clearly a spot for the Cyclist to tuck in to by the blue sign… pic.twitter.com/qX5Qc5ietr
— Dan Steele (@dan_of_steele) February 14, 2024
15 February 2024, 09:39
15 February 2024, 09:39
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
107 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Correct. The Guardian is not a source of scientific data. It is a newspaper that REPORTS on the findings of scientists. And scientists are almost unanimous that anthropocentric global warming is real and represents a thereat to humanity. Anyway, this article isn't from the Guardian, so I don't know why you're wanging on about it.
Have the people complaining actually tried the ChatGPT for Komoot app? It doesn't sound like it to me. Because if they had, they would have much more specific complaints about how crap it is. (I'm going to confess I'm a bit of a hypocrite - I haven't tried it myself, as I don't have a ChatGPT account (I do have a Komoot account). But plenty of examples on the internet of people trying it and getting routes that have seemingly little relationship to the prompt supplied).
“planning the race for the morning hours and avoiding the afternoons could substantially increase rider and spectator safety” but it would reduce the appeal to sponsors and TV broadcasters, who pay the bills and so are far more important than the riders and spectators. It's therefore not going to happen. Even making a last-minute switch in extreme situations probably won't work because of the amount of logistics and people involved - the TdF is SO much bigger than the Tour Down Under.
Ah, the scientific rigour of the climate-change-denying right, a blank assertion with no evidence offered coupled with an insult. Pathetic.
Or, in higher temperatures, use ice jackets and ice bundles which can be replenished from the support car.
A cooling sleeve cools you down for maybe 30 minutes and then it becomes a hassle, it also prevents heat leaving the body as an "empty" sleeve now becomes an extra layer. It does make some sense for a time, but in the long run it's just problematic to use. It's just much easier to just pour water over your body.
This kind of journalism makes me laugh. As climate change brings ecological breakdown and migration on a biblical scale and international food security puts the price of food out of most people's pockets then there isn't going to be any bike racing in the morning or any other time. Get an allotment and learn how to protect it. Good luck everyone.
I often wonder why they don't wear cooling arm sleeves and cooling hats under their helmets. At a guess it's probably something to do with 'the rules', as this is road racing. Headsweats caps and similar make a big difference to how hot you get and you avoid getting your head sunburnt through the gaps in your helmet.
It's good going to keep the Vanquish price at £485, especially if you can still get a discount through Cycling UK or British Cycling, or maybe a cashback site (I've seen 10% via Complete Savings before). Shame Halfords didn't change the cassette as road.cc suggested in their review last year though.
Plenty of distinguishing features to identify the place including "Dubai, UAE" right at the top of that Insta post. And using a mobile phone while driving is illegal in Dubai and across the UAE.
107 thoughts on ““I’m a 60-foot lorry… it’s easier for you to go back as a pushbike”: Countryside stand-off between cyclist and driver turns heated; Carrera Jeans or Quick-Step 2.0? Alpecin-Deceuninck brings double-denim kit to the peloton + more on the live blog”
I think I’d probably just
I think I’d probably just turn round and let the lorry through there, but what would be quite interesting to know would be from what distance did the lorry driver have sight of the cyclist and did they have sight of them before they reached the passing place which the cyclist is indicating. If the lorry driver had the chance to stop and wait for the cyclist to come through but ploughed on regardless, even though they could see the cyclist coming, then a bit of bloodymindedness in terms of not ceding would be understandable.
You know as well as I do,and
You know as well as I do,and that I frequently encounter on roads like that, the driver saw the cyclist in plenty of time, could have stopped at multiple passing points, but just kept driving forward because “get out the way I’m a motorist”.
You “know” that do you?
You “know” that do you?
I encounter that same
I encounter that same attitude from drivers so frequently on single track roads be it car, van even bus.
the trucker even confirms it themselves in the video, “I’m a 60ft lorry” in other words youre just a cyclist, no apologising, no compromising together, might is always right.
So yes im able to “know” the unknowable, it’s called experience.
mark1a wrote:
Could you explain what part of their experiences you are questioning that they know?
We don’t know the preceding
We don’t know the preceding history, but the woman on a bike isn’t exactly painting herself in a good light. If I were riding with her I’d probably apologise for her behaviour and drag her back with me.
Depressing how incidents like this feed the all cyclists are dicks brigade, too.
lesterama wrote:
Well there are two possibilities for the history, one is that they have simply encountered each other and neither had the opportunity to give way, in which case yes the cyclist is being a dick, or the lorry driver had the opportunity to stop and let the cyclist pass but chose to drive on to a point where that became impossible, in which case the lorry driver is being a dick and the cyclist is justified in at least having a word about it. As you say, we don’t know the history so I’m not sure why you would interpret it as it being the cyclist who is not “painting herself in a good light” when it could just as well be the lorry driver who has unnecessarily created the confrontation.
yes, I think there’s probably
yes, I think there’s probably more to this.
It’s fair enough though if the driver is accessing land and has to use this vehicle. There are many rural properties on lanes like this that occasionally require access by large vehicles, mainly septic tank pumping, fuel oil deliveries, bin lorries, building materials etc. Although there are some drivers that ignore weight restrictions and access only signs in order to take a shortcut.
Get a smaller vehicle. It’s
Get a smaller vehicle. It’s always an option, even if not as immediately convenient.
Most of the vehicles you
Most of the vehicles you mention are not 60 feet long, they are probably not even 30 feet long and would be much easier to reverse if necessary. Just because you have a 60 foot lorry it is not necessarily the best vehicle to use and multiple trips with a smaller vehicle might be easier and safer.
Backladder wrote:
She probably didnt anticipate meeting miss belligerent a bike.
The pedant in me says, “the
The pedant in me says, “in the video I saw a pedestrian with a pushbike and not a cyclist.”
I believe that there are different rules for cyclists (who can cause obstructions) and pedestrians (who cannot).
Why has the lorry driver
Why has the lorry driver decided to whip a camera out…could understand dash cam capturing it but don’t get the mentality of needing to purposely film it. Without seeing footage prior to the altercation I’m sure either or of them could have resolved it earlier by observing ahead of them….
are they safely parked? maybe
are they safely parked? maybe that’s 6 points and a fine!
A good reason for running a
A good reason for running a camera. I would have given in knowing full well that I would be submitting the footage to the police when I got home. Revenge is a dish best served cold.
I can’t help feeling there
I can’t help feeling there must be a slightly better solution than using a 60′ foot lorry on a narrow lane where you can’t reverse. What is she going to do if there is a tree down ? It’s not like we haven’t had various storms in the last 2 or 3 months.
Or meets a truck coming the
Or meets a truck coming the other way, there are plenty of trucks in multiples picking up sugar beet locally from fields with access roads like that.
Hirsute wrote:
Obviously the tree will have to reverse.
What a nutter of an entitled
What a nutter of an entitled cyclist. Perhaps she should try reversing a 60ft lorry. Just let the lorry through, so much simpler.
As I understand it, drivers
As I understand it, drivers of 60 ft lorries are required to “try reversing’. If they can’t do it they don’t get their HGV license.
So what? It’s clearly easier
So what? It’s clearly easier and safer for the cyclist to back up, so common courtesy would dictate that she should do so–unless, of course, there is more to this than meets the eye.
Have a read if what the
Have a read if what the Highway Code says about it …
Country roads
Rule 154
Take extra care on country roads and reduce your speed at approaches to bends, which can be sharper than they appear, and at junctions and turnings, which may be partially hidden. Be prepared for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, slow-moving farm vehicles or mud on the road surface. Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear. You should also reduce your speed where country roads enter villages.
Rule 155
Single-track roads. These are only wide enough for one vehicle. They may have special passing places. If you see a vehicle coming towards you, or the driver behind wants to overtake, pull into a passing place on your left, or wait opposite a passing place on your right. Give way to road users coming uphill whenever you can. If necessary, reverse until you reach a passing place to let the other vehicle pass. Slow down when passing pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
And? There’s no reason to
And? There’s no reason to believe the lorry driver hasn’t complied with both those points.
Except …
Except …
The passing place behind the truck is closer than the passing place behind the cyclist.
From the video, the cyclist would have been visible to the truck driver before the truck went passed the passing place.
Therefore the truck driver should have given way to the cyclist at the passing place, and not used the size of their vehicle to attempt to intimidate and bully the cyclist.
That’s the reason to believe that the truck driver hasn’t complied.
I know we’re a cycling
I know we’re a cycling website but here goes…
Why is everyone assuming that the lorry driver saw the cyclist in plenty of time but didn’t stop? It could quite easily have been that the cyclist saw the lorry, also in plenty of time, yet still carried on riding towards the confrontation. Without seeing previous footage we haven’t got a clue of what led to this.
kinderje wrote:
Looking at the length of road visible in the video unless the cyclist is an elite rider in disguise and was riding at TT pace they would have been visible to the driver for long enough for them to stop at the passing place if it is indeed just behind the lorry as suggested.
As suggested by whom? Your
As suggested by whom? Your argument is based entirely on speculation.
john_smith wrote:
The woman on the bike suggests there is a wider space just behind the lorry and the driver doesn’t disagree, she just doesn’t think she can safely reverse to it.
kinderje wrote:
Why do you think the lorry driver didn’t include the beginning part of the video?
What passing place are you
What passing place are you talking about?
john_smith wrote:
The cyclist says there’s a “wide bit” just behind the lorry and the driver doesn’t dispute that, just says it will be difficult for her to reverse to it, so it’s a fairly safe assumption it exists, one would have thought? The interesting question is that if there is a wide bit there, why didn’t the lorry driver pause to let the cyclist go past rather than keep going and ask the cyclist, who presumably was in view when she (driver) passed the wide place, to go back?
If that is the case the
If that is the case the cyclist’s attitude is certainly understandable.
“So what” is “Loser’s’ (may I
“So what” is “Loser’s’ (may I call them that?) suggestion that reversing a lorry is somehow beyond the ability of the driver. It’s not for the cyclist to demonstrate that they can do it…but it is for the HGV driver. I’ve been driven at murderously by cars and supermarket delivery vans (…more reasons not to…) and tractors on roads like these often enough to know why the cyclist might be standing her ground. Truck driver knows the road, knows there are passing places and has a high vantage point. All suggesting they may be in the wrong. I don’t know the road in question but it appears unsuitable for HGVs. I would probably turn back to a passing place myself but I’d still call out the driver if they’d had a clear view of me and failed to stop at a passing place on their approach.
No one is suggesting
No one is suggesting reversing the lorry is beyond the ability of anyone. But it would arguably be a lot easier and safer for the cyclist to back up. Your experience with motorists is beside the point.
Well, ‘Loser’ did kind of
Well, ‘Loser’ did kind of suggest just that.(‘…try reversi ng a 60ft lorry…’).My experience with motorists is that some drivers will barrel through at any cost with no regard for other road users and expect them to disappear even when there’s nowhere to disappear to. If that’s what happened, or what the cyclist perceived to have happened, then I can understand her attitude.
Fair enough, though the lorry
Fair enough, though the lorry driver doesn’t really come across as one of them to me.
john_smith wrote:
entirely depends on how far to the next passing place in each direction. I can’t see one behind the cyclist, maybe she has to go back half a mile while the driver (in typical driver fashion) did not consider use of the passing place just behind them (speculation) appropriate when a little bit of forward planning would have avoided this confrontation.
I find it hard to imagine the cyclist rode past a passing place while the lorry was in sight approaching them, but it’s very easy to imagine the opposite, because drivers almost never wait in/opposite a passing place when a cyclist is approaching. I say almost because it’s possible it might have happend, but I have never seen it.
I used to do it.
I used to do it.
And 75ft non-divisible trailers.
If you can’t drive it backwards, you shouldn’t be driving it forwards.
Many years ago when I was far
Many years ago when I was far gobbier than I am now I was halfway along a stretch of road exiting a small village. My side of the road had a line of parked cars – 50 meters or so – over which I would have had to climb to reach the pavement. If a vehicle had been coming the other way before I began to pass the line of cars I’d have rightly given way. A single decker bus came barreling along screeching to a halt leaving me no room to even squeeze past with the driver wildly gesticulating for me to get out of his way. It’s a good job strava wasn’t then a thing ‘cos the stand off’ till the driver reversed would have played havoc with my time for that segment.
Reminds me of a vidoe where 2
Reminds me of a video where 2 drivers are in an impasse on a narrow lane and both refuse to reverse. Cyclist waiting eventually gives up and manages to shuffle sideways whilst holding his bike above his head and gets past and continues.
This sort of impasse is played out by various parties in various vehicles.
I’ve had one like that, with
I’ve had one like that, with the delicious additional detail that one of them had only moments earlier close-passed me because they couldn’t possibly be stuck behind a cyclist on a narrow lane. Very much enjoyed passing them again seconds later when they were stationary.
This used to happen a lot,
This used to happen a lot, but with car drivers.
I’d sit there, having pointed out the passing space behind them, and quietly lurk.
ERF Olympics are very good at lurking. They look like they could lurk all day (especially if you get someone to lay down on front of it while you go down the pub .. ), and what’s more, mine was pretty comfortable to lurk in.
After a minute or two of watching some car driver turn a dark red, I’d turn the engine off… you don’t realise how loud these things are when they are ticking over.
I might unwind the window a bit … but if the car driver was still ranting and doubting my parentage, I’d close it again, without answering.
After another couple of minutes, and to the accompanying click-click of the hazard light relay, I’d get the paper out and start reading.
For some reason, this would then spark a rather interesting shade of blue in the face of the car driver, who normally would then sense defeat and reverse into the passing spot.
I’d then put the paper away, start the engine and let it idle for a good few minutes shouting that I “needed to charge the airtanks or we’re going nowhere”.
At that time, I was paid by the hour, and didn’t care how long i was sat there for.
Country lanes and artics … not a good mix.
Devon lanes and coaches … feck that.
Quote:
So that lorry probably ought not to have been driven along that lane in the first place…
Imagine if they’d met another 60-foot lorry. They would have been stuck there forever.
She said she was going to her
She said she was going to her field, so I guess she would have co-ordinated with the rest of the household !
“Get orfff my road!”
“Get orfff my road!” 😉
Hirsute wrote:
Just because you have a field doesn’t mean its a good idea to park a 60 foot lorry in it!
If you have to transport
If you have to transport something heavy to or from the field, how else would you do it?
A smaller vehicle that is
A smaller vehicle that is less wide.
As has already been written.
There may be other hazards she might meet, some non negotiable as has already been stated.
john_smith wrote:
Oh that’s an easy one – in a lorry that’s too big for the road, obviously.
john_smith wrote:
Strangely enough there is a wind farm being built further along the single track road I live on at the moment so I know exactly how you do it. You widen and strengthen the road bed and you increase the radius of the corners. You do this while the road is closed to through traffic and you restore it back to normal when finished. The largest and heaviest things normally taken in and out of fields are cows and bales of hay/silage and these can be done with much smaller vehicles, taking a 60 foot lorry down that lane is just stupid.
Maybe this isn’t normal?
Maybe this isn’t normal? Maybe it’s a rare or one-off occurrence? And unless you know exactly what the lorry is carrying and why, saying taking it down there is stupid is also a wee bit stupid.
You talk about widening and strengthening the road, but it would be a heck of a lot easier for one of the parties involved here simply to back up.
It might not be normal, but
It might not be normal, but round here the farmers will post people at appropriate places to stop traffic while taking large machinery where it doesn’t really fit, most drivers (and cyclists) will stop and wait if they are told there is an abnormal load heading towards them.
Anyone read the latest Eben
Anyone read the latest Eben Weiss blog?
https://bikesnobnyc.com/2024/02/14/atone-it-down-for-chrissakes/
With regards to the gouge in
With regards to the gouge in Jeff Stelling’s car…
How can we be sure it was done whilst he was away from it and the vehicle was parked?
No disrespect to Jeff but a lot of drivers (especially of larger cars) may not notice if they sideswipe something that could cause damage like that.
So in theory it could be self-inflicted.
mitsky wrote:
The damage was quite clearly inflicted by something very strong and sharp being dragged through the metal skin and pulled out, most likely in a sawing motion, possibly to get at some device to allow access and theft of the vehicle.
It’s much more likely that this would have been done while stationery, would be very difficult and dangerous to do while moving.
Like many here, I am thinking
Like many here, I am thinking there is more to this than initially meets the eye. At first glance the cyclist appears to be a muppet. Of course it’s easier and way faster a solution for the cyclist to turn around and cycle back to the first gateway to allow the lorry to pass. That’s SO OBVIOUS that it raised red flag number one. Red flag two is raised when looking at the cyclist, it’s not some stroppy male but a middle aged female, not the section of the species best known for provoking bolshy stand-offs which makes me think what went on before. The third red flag is raised by the way the clip ends. I am kind of left wondering whether the cyclist went on to point out that not only was there a gap just behind the lorry but the lorry driver had decided to drive right by it with the cyclist in plain sight. I guess we will never know which of the two, or possibly both, were being totally unreasonable now!
What middle aged women have
What middle aged women have you been dealing with. They can 100% one of the most obnoxious groups to deal with. They have few fucks to give, often a very stress free life which leads to manufactured stress ie. someone daring to cut their hedge a little short and they are very stubborn.
I’m not suggesting this woman fits that bill with any surety but I have witnessed plenty of middle aged women and men being fantastically obtuse and obnoxious for little reason.
In this situation I would just get out of the way because I simply don’t care enough to make a big deal out of it. The lorry driver is an idiot but no one really wins fighting an idiot with your own idiocy.
Why do you say the lorry
Why do you say the lorry driver is an idiot? On the basis of what can be seen in the film I reckon she seems pretty reasonable.
john_smith wrote:
I expect it’s mostly because of the things she said in the video, such as “I’m 60-foot long and the same width as this road as you can see by the fact that you can see I’m in the hedge on both sides,”
What’s wrong with that?
What’s wrong with that?
john_smith wrote:
Apart from stupidly driving up such a narrow country lane in her 60 foot lorry.
I deal with my fair share of
I deal with my fair share of middle aged women, being of that age myself. Mrs LeadenSkies tells me she has not an obnoxious bone in her body and I don’t dare disagree! ?
I like to think I too would have moved out of the way as that’s the sensible thing to do but in my younger days I am ashamed to say I suspect I might have had a few very choice words for the driver.
LeadenSkies wrote:
That would be where I would lay my bet.
All we can say for sure; two
All we can say for sure; two women can’t reverse. The rest is speculation.
“…it’s easier for you to go
“…it’s easier for you to go back as a pushbike…”
Lorries have a reverse gear. Bicycles do not.
Benthic wrote:
And an engine.
What is a “pushbike” anyway?
What is a “pushbike” anyway?
I don’t know about other road.cc commenters, but I generally pedal mine rather than pushing it along like a three year old on a balance bike…
I’ve often called it a
I’ve often called it a pushbike. Not sure what all the fuss is about tbh!
Benthic wrote:
Is she unable to turn around then?
If that street is where I
If that street is where I think it is in Bath, it’s a ginnel which has never allowed motor traffic through.
I wonder if James Wright
I wonder if James Wright believes the Rt. Hon. B. Johnson is a LibDem?
In the foreword to ‘Gear Change: One Year On’ Mr Johnson, in his role as Conservative Prime Minister, said “Almost exactly six years ago, in east London, we began the first of the transformational low-traffic neighbourhood schemes I funded as mayor. There was intense controversy: hundreds of protestors carried a golden coffin to symbolise the “death” we were supposedly causing to the local shops. But the council stuck it out, thank goodness. Now, the local shops and cafes have never been busier, air quality is up, opposition to the LTN has evaporated, and so has some of the traffic.”
I have confronted numerous
I have confronted numerous drivers with numerous ways and numerous results when they park on the bicycle lane, but here I would just ride back. I have driven big vehicles, (fortunately not big as that) and have sat in a lorry’s passenger’s seat reversing in a narrow road (no space to reverse) where the whole experience took a few hours, so I can feel empathy for the driver.
Besides not sure what happens in UK driving law, but where I am now when two vehicles get stuck, the smaller has to reverse, so in this case where we have a huge lorry (with a seemingly not very experienced driver) and a bicycle it just seems ridiculous that the cyclist still argues.
The road is marked as unsuitable but heavy vehicles are not explicitly prohibited.
I suspect UK law or the
I suspect UK law or the highway code suggests you make use of passing places to aid each others passage past.
The problem is drivers in the UK thesedays just won’t stop, or simply slow down abit, to allow you as a cyclist to use them, they drive at you, you’ve got to get out of their way.
The cyclist here was displaying classic British passive aggression in her stance, no doubt completely fed up of being treated that way and was making a point, more power to her.
Second stage of Vuelta a
Second stage of Vuelta a Andalucia also cancelled due to protests! This is getting serious, I’m in danger of getting some work done and meeting my deadlines at this rate…
That doesn’t sound good. Have
That doesn’t sound good. Have you seen the film “Super Sid”? Definitely a good way to kill half an hour of your working day.
I have not, thank you, marked
I have not, thank you, marked down for later. Fortunately the Volta Algarve is coming up at 14.50 so all is not lost!
The Mexican Stand Off.
The Mexican Stand Off.
Based on the video, it looks like a nice straight bit of lane.
Also based on the transcript, the passing place *behind* the truck is significantly closer than the passing place *behind* the cyclist.
Which leads the question of … did the cyclist magically materialise in front of the truck in that position… or was the truck driver relying on the size of their vehicle to intimidate the cyclist?
It certainly sounds like a case of “I’m a truck … get outta my way, ‘cos I’m a truck”.
It looks like the cyclist would have been visible for a significant period of time as the truck driver deliberately ignored the passing place.
Ex C+E, STGO, ADR.
Long time member of the “if you cant reverse it, don’t fecking drive it” club.
Oldfatgit wrote:
Oh – oh! I know, sir!
The lorry driver stopped.
The lorry driver stopped. That looks like a bit of a result to me.
I wonder if the cyclist and
I wonder if the cyclist and driver already know each other (past history). It was nice that there didn’t seem to be any shouting and swearing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51w49l8nd2o
Shit…
Shit…
Love the way they always say
Love the way they always say “a cyclist collided with”.
At least the motorist (or
At least the motorist (or their passenger) got out of the car, which means it’s not just written off as ‘one of those things’…
Cyclists v Lorry Driver.
Cyclists v Lorry Driver.
The cyclist could have been very petty and slowly walked the bike back to a wider spot in the road.
Even at walking speed, the lorry driver would likely not have complained as the alternative was to try to reverse the lorry.
The cyclist could have been slow enough to do it so that another motor vehicle driver ended up facing the lorry…
Not saying I would do it myself… maybe.
The lorry driver needs to know what vehicle is appropriate for that type of road.
“The lorry driver needs to
“The lorry driver needs to know what vehicle is appropriate for that type of road.”
You do understand how farms work?
There’s not a donkey and hay cart transporting stuff to the village market. Lorrys do the donkey work now. It’s a single track lane, and the lorry is correctly sized for it.
I grew up on single track
I grew up on single track roads and it’s all very easy, you use your common sense. If you see something coming in the opposite direction and can pull in to let them pass, pull in and let them pass.
That was then and this is now. We have poor driving, poor judgment, very little common sense, GPS and entitlement.
A truck that big shouldn’t really be on lanes that narrow.
A truck driver should be able to reverse said truck.
Driver could possibly have seen the cyclist and pulled into the wide area that she now refuses to reverse into.
Cyclist would have heard the truck.
Cyclist could have anticipated and pulled in earlier.
The only person that I would automatically hit reverse for when I saw him, as did everyone except outsiders, was Eddie Ditcher who simply refused to reverse and would leave his van parked in the road.
I get the feeling that there is on going beef here where I suspect the local cyclist is sick of people not used to driving lanes being a problem.
For me, it’s easier to solve the problem by moving over earlier.
My favourite muppets are the ones that I pull over for and flash to come through. They then decide that they will pull over themselves and flash me through. Another Mexican standoff. The clearest sign that they are nervous of driving lanes and should probably stay away, it’s usually safe to pass them at speed.
“A truck that big shouldn’t
“A truck that big shouldn’t really be on lanes that narrow.”
It looks like a pretty standard width narrow country lane that many farms face onto, and it looks like a pretty standard size truck for farm traffic.
Would you say that a 60ft
Would you say that a 60ft truck is of the articulated variety? I’d say that she’d be pretty fucked on most of the corners on the lanes I lived on or many that I have driven on. The milk trucks we received at the creamery were all rigid of this sort of size, not articulated. I can’t actually think of any farm locally where I’ve seen an articulated truck use single track lanes.
EDIT: I guess you could be right, you can clearly see where large vehicles have done the hard work of chewing up the verge to make it passable for her and her artic.
I saw this one last week
I saw this one last week loading up in a field off one of my regular “quiet lane” single track routes. I didn’t hang about to find out if it made it back out.
I would guess that the driver
I would guess that the driver and farmer have both done their homework to determine that no damage is done to verges, that said truck can get in and out and that the driver has the ability to reverse if they ever come across an Eddie Ditcher (or other road user as they wouldn’t want to be seen as entitled).
Cyclist looks like one of
Cyclist looks like one of those clueless, cycle only road users. I often cycle down a narrow section and often find a car up my arse. Rather than drag it out for another mile ‘because I can’, I hop on the grass or into a cutaway when I can and they go away and I’m not worrying about a car behind me. It’s that simple.
As others have said, her
As others have said, her behaviour might seem unreasonable, but you don’t know what happened beforehand.
Who cares what happened
Who cares what happened beforehand; the situation was clear that the cyclist did not want to get out of the way of the truck.
Thought he was clever to
Thought he was clever tweeting the blue sign “Unsuitable for HGVs”.
However, every good cyclist should know that all blue signs are “shoulds” and are advice only. E.g. “Cyclists dismount” is a recommendation not an instruction.
Blue signs are instructions,
Blue signs are instructions, and are must not should
The blue sign shown in the
The blue sign shown in the photo is square which is advice, your thinking of circular signs like e.g. arrows on roundabouts showing direction of travel.
You realise he just grabbed
You realise he just grabbed an image of any old blue hgv sign and says it’s not the road in question.
Another “dazzled by the sun”
Another “dazzled by the sun” defence.
This is a classic video where
This is a classic video where it has been edited to make the opponent look unreasonable. The beginning bit, with the lorry driver beeping her horn and swearing at the cyclist has been removed.
neilmck wrote:
Indeed, and what happened afterwards? Did the cyclist after (pretty politely as far as I can tell) objecting to the lorry driver’s behaviour turn round and let them through? One suspects probably so, otherwise the “look how entitled this cyclist is” driver would surely have posted a longer clip.
Of course the Karen with the
Of course the Karen with the bike eventually relented when she realised that the driver was not going to reverse; the old dear was lucky she wasn’t dealing with a male driver, as her bike would likely have been thrown to the side before the driver proceeded.
A good example of a bike but
A good example of a bike but no brains
Women.. stay in the kitchen
Women.. stay in the kitchen
Isn’t there something in the
Isn’t there something in the latest Highway Code about the drivers of motor vehicles giving way to cyclists and pedestrians? But maybe the driver of the 60′ truck hasn’t read it.
She did give way. If she hadn
She did give way. If she hadn’t, the cyclist would have been under the lorry.
john_smith wrote:
Stopping for a standoff isn’t exactly giving way, the “way” that is “given” is the road or path, ceded to the other user; here the lorry driver is blocking the cyclist’s way, not giving it.