“An everyday occurrence”: Driver pulls out on cyclist in very relatable clip; DIY cycle lane pops up after council removes segregated infra; G’s Cycling Trust; BathLive readers LOVE active travel; Alt Tour film; Strange kit release + more on the live blog

137 thoughts on ““An everyday occurrence”: Driver pulls out on cyclist in very relatable clip; DIY cycle lane pops up after council removes segregated infra; G’s Cycling Trust; BathLive readers LOVE active travel; Alt Tour film; Strange kit release + more on the live blog”

1. The basic problem in this

   The basic problem in this country is that bad driving is accepted, and goes unpunished.  While I’m not generally in favour of draconian measures, this is one time I’d break that rule and introduce much more rigorous policing of the roads, including a dedicated team of officers to view, analyse and prosecute incidents like this, which should result in an appropriate punishment of a week’s ban, enforced by confiscating the vehicle for a week.  These incidents happen daily to almost every cyclist, and while most don’t result in a collision, some will.  If you repeat relatively low risk things enough, eventually it will happen.

   Sure, the drivers will scream, stamp their feet and froth at the mouth, but if it saves just a hundred lives, or a thousand lives……..

   We all make mistakes, but when that can result in a death, we have a duty to make that activity as safe as possible, not to tolerate incompetence.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Wasn’t it always said that

     Wasn’t it always said that you learnt to pass your test then you learnt to drive “properly”. I think “properly” actually meant like everyone else. There’s a common set of rules that drivers follow that are not in (and in many cases contradict) the highway code. With the increases in active cycling, scootering and even walking drivers need to consider the new normal and drive accordingly (which will of course be as presented in the HC). 

     But of course this idea will elicit the normal comments on culture wars, war on cars and general whataboutery to cover up the fact they have learnt too many bad habits and don’t want to change.

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. This is an everyday
   This is an everyday occurrence because of driving culture and infrastructure.

   Drivers problem: I need to get into this queue of traffic, so need to nudge my way out because no one will let me in.

   S/he does not give a thought to blocking the cycle lane because they are planning to block the traffic anyway to get out of the side road and probably doesn’t see the oncoming cyclist because the queue of traffic is at a standstill so probably doesn’t look.

   It’s much easier to see the hazard, in this case a cyclist, if you are looking for it.

   More education for drivers please.

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. This not a case of didn’t

   This not a case of didn’t look or didn’t see the cyclist, but it’s only a cyclist and I don’t give a f@ck

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. IDIOTA!

   IDIOTA!

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. The other party’s insurance

   The other party’s insurance has just paid out for my dearly-beloved Jaegher after I was right hooked on CS7 in May.  The blue paint did nothing.  Still waiting on the physical injuries (9 hours in ST George’s A&E). 

   The police sent the driver a NIP, but didn’t do anything in the end because of a lack of independent witnesses, despite police attendance and examination of the scene and an admission of fault by the driver.  Not really worried about that, frankly, as she was shaken to the core.  Main thing was being able to top the bank balance back up again after replacing the bike – the insurance company might have been a complete pain to deal with, but at least they paid up.  Thanks also to British Cycling’s insurance cover and their lawyers baring their teeth in my corner.

   On the plus side also, at least the driver had a licence and insurance. Around CS7 (SE London), 1 in 11 vehicles are uninsured.  East London, it’s 1 in 8. Put another way, one of the cars in the clip above is probably uninsured.  

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. I had a similar one recently

   I had a similar one recently where a fella in a convertible close-passed me, then squeezed me in toward the kerb, then stopped to turn right into a petrol station.  I gave a similar “Excellent driving, thank you very much!”.  He looked genuinely bewildered.  That he did not think he’d done anything wrong was almost more worrying than if he’d done it deliberately!

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Isn’t that the issue – they

     Isn’t that the issue – they don’t think they’ve done anything wrong….

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. Poor driving by the white car

   Poor driving by the white car. But the situation was not very clear for anyone (cross-roads, congestian, pedestrian crossing), and the difference in speed made the situation hard to predict for the frustrated and stressed (they all are) driver. The driver slowly pulled out before the bike was close enough to be seen well – in traffic that moved so slowly and chaotically that the driver had to focus on things happening nearby. After getting going, the driver probably had to focus on the car in front, which might have stopped at any time. So, no excuses for the white cars — but many reasons for expecting its driver to make a mistake in a confusing situation.

   And then, the bike had to stop anyway at the pedestrian’s crossing – so no kinetic energy was wasted for slowing down for the white car. If roles were swapped (white car on main road, bike pulling in from side road), we might have even considered this a mild case of “must get in front”. Stretching things, you might also argue that the white car actually “shielded” the pedestrian crossing from the bike traffic…

   In summary: Yep, white car did someting slightly, stupid, a little ignorant and potentially dangerous, but in a highly confusing situation. The cyclist responded correctly by adjusting the speed (he had to stop at the pedestrian’s crossing anyway), and things were resolved.

   In the end, this is how we have to deal with confusing situations in traffic.

   The rider probably learned to be even more carful in such confusing situations, the driver probably learned to watch out more for (unexpected) cyclists.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • anke wrote:

     In summary: Yep, white car did someting slightly, stupid, a little ignorant and potentially dangerous, but in a highly confusing situation.

     — ankeTwo things; the car did nothing, it was the driver, and if you find that situation confusing, you shouldn’t be on the road in any kind of vehicle, and probably not as a pedestrian.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • “Two things; the car did

       “Two things; the car did nothing, it was the driver,” reading a post in it’s entirety before answering might help, “and if you find that situation” post “confusing“, up to the summary, “you shouldn’t be on the road” a forum “in any kind of vehicle“ role, “and probably not as a pedestrian“  poster.”  😉

       Edit – last line removed.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • anke wrote:

         “Two things; the car did nothing, it was the driver,” reading a post in it’s entirety before answering might help, “and if you find that situation” post “confusing“, up to the summary, “you shouldn’t be on the road” a forum “in any kind of vehicle“ role, “and probably not as a pedestrian“  poster.”  😉

         To everybody else: apologies for responding to a troll.

         — anke

         We’re well off for trolls round this neighbourhood but eburt isn’t one of them (despite the fact that we frequently disagree!), and nothing in his response justifies such an accusation. Ironically, in fact, your rather desperate attempt to be clever in response is far more trollish than anything he said.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           We’re well off for trolls round this neighbourhood but eburt isn’t one of them (despite the fact that we frequently disagree!)

           — Rendel Harris

           No we don’t.

         • eburtthebike wrote:

           We’re well off for trolls round this neighbourhood but eburt isn’t one of them (despite the fact that we frequently disagree!)

           — eburtthebike

           No we don’t.

           — Rendel Harris

           Thats not a disagreement, it’s just contradiction!

         • stomec wrote:

           We’re well off for trolls round this neighbourhood but eburt isn’t one of them (despite the fact that we frequently disagree!)

           — stomec

           No we don’t.

           — eburtthebike

           Thats not a disagreement, it’s just contradiction!

           — Rendel Harris

           Is this the full half hour argument or just the five minutes?

         • eburtthebike wrote:

           We’re well off for trolls round this neighbourhood but eburt isn’t one of them (despite the fact that we frequently disagree!)

           — eburtthebike

           No we don’t.

           — stomec

           Thats not a disagreement, it’s just contradiction!

           — eburtthebike

           Is this the full half hour argument or just the five minutes?

           — Rendel Harris

           I’m just arguing in my spare time 

         •  The great Eddie Mair at his

            The great Eddie Mair at his first job interview for Scottish radio: interviewer, looking at his application: “I see it says here you enjoy a good argument?” Eddie: “No it doesn’t.” He got the job!

   • If the driver found that

     If the driver found that situation confusing, then the answer is to stop driving.

     You obviously didn’t read the twitter comments which said the driver did not look. That is not being confused, that is being incompetent.

     “Stretching things, you might also argue that the white car actually “shielded” the pedestrian crossing from the bike traffic…”

     Sorry, are you channeling the resident troll?

     “The rider probably learned to be even more carful in such confusing situations”

     Pretty bloody sure CycleGaz has a rather high level of hazard perception given the videos he posts and is very carful (sic).

     “the driver probably learned to watch out more for (unexpected) cyclists.”

     Yeah, who would expect a cyclist in a cycle lane ?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Many simple answers that won

       Many simple answers that won’t be of help for anyone.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Well, that’s many of the

         Well, that’s many of the regular posters here on Road.cc for you.

         No balance. Bikes always right. Cars always wrong.

         Simps, eh?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • See NMOTD 646

           See NMOTD 646

           https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-646-close-pass-ahead-roundabout-287227

           Plenty of previous comments over the months where the cyclist has got flak for their roadcraft.

   • But there was a cycle lane

     But there was a cycle lane painted on the road.  Any qualified driver ought to be also checking that, not just looking at the stationary motor vehicles.  If they can’t do that then perhaps they ought to consider using public transport instead?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Yes, using public transport

       Yes, using public transport would be good for almost all drivers. But we all have learned to act based on reflexes (you can’t survive in traffic contemplating about everything you do) – and some of these reflexes require retraining. On the other hand, participants in traffic need to expect the mistakes by others to ensure that these mistakes have no irreversible consequences.

       Regarding the cycle lane painted on the road: it’s poorly painted, almost worn off and hardly visible on a read road. And as cyclists, we have learned to ignore some of them – the dangerous ones, the poor ones, the narrow ones, the dirty ones and the blocked ones. Foreseeing that a driver might also ignore a  cycle lane may be a life saver…

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • anke wrote:

         Yes, using public transport would be good for almost all drivers. But we all have learned to act based on reflexes (you can’t survive in traffic contemplating about everything you do) – and some of these reflexes require retraining. On the other hand, participants in traffic need to expect the mistakes by others to ensure that these mistakes have no irreversible consequences.

         Regarding the cycle lane painted on the road: it’s poorly painted, almost worn off and hardly visible on a read road. And as cyclists, we have learned to ignore some of them – the dangerous ones, the poor ones, the narrow ones, the dirty ones and the blocked ones. Foreseeing that a driver might also ignore a  cycle lane may be a life saver…

         — anke

         A driver acting just on reflexes is a danger to everyone. If you drive anything like that, then please stop immediately.

         The cycle lane is irrelevant in this instance as the driver pulled out from a side road without sufficiently checking that it was safe to do so. Without a cycle lane, it would still be likely for a cyclist to be filtering and subsequently endangered by the motorist’s rash and dangerous maneouvre.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • A driver acting just on

           A driver acting just on reflexes is a danger to everyone.

           Why did you add the “JUST” to my statement? I never wrote about acting “JUST” on reflexes.

           But coming back to the topic: People complained about the poor behaviour of the driver of the white car. I made a comment that this behaviour was poor, but should have been expected by the cyclist.

           I believe that just complaining, amongst cyclists, won’t help anyone. Learning from these videos, however, is a great way of improving our own cycling and our awarenes of potential dangers. And this is the spirit I’m writing in. 

           But I’m not stopping anyone from complaining or whinging about a driver in video…

         • anke wrote:

           I believe that just complaining, amongst cyclists, won’t help anyone. Learning from these videos, however, is a great way of improving our own cycling and our awarenes of potential dangers. And this is the spirit I’m writing in. 

           But I’m not stopping anyone from complaining or whinging about a driver in video…

           — anke

           No what you are doing is trying to justify the actions of the driver 

           They might have just looked too early – at a time suitable for the (almost) stationary cars but not for a moving bike.

           — anke

           Or is that not what you are doing….. I mean you are essentially saying is that their actions would have been acceptable had the cyclist not been there.

         • No what you are doing is

           No what you are doing is trying to justify the actions of the driver 

           I’m trying to understand WHY the driver has reacted in the WRONG way – not to justify the action.

         • anke wrote:

           No what you are doing is trying to justify the actions of the driver 

           I’m trying to understand WHY the driver has reacted in the WRONG way – not to justify the action.

           — anke

           It’s really quite simple….. they were not paying attention

         • This is perhaps a little too

           This is perhaps a little too simple – there’s usually a reason for people to not pay due attention…

         • They are thinking about the

           They are thinking about the football

           They had an argument

           They are tired

           They are in a hurry

           They are distracted by a child in the back seat

           They are on a call

           They are on drugs

           You could come up with 100s of reasons – what will you do with the actual reason?

           Unless your agenda is to try and blame the cyclist again.

            

         • Unless your agenda is to try

           Unless your agenda is to try and blame the cyclist again.

           I never blamed the cyclists. Perhaps read my posts and try to show some evidence – or consider stopping the agression instead.

         • CycleGaz already answered

           CycleGaz already answered that in the twitter link.

           Well as far as anyone can answer WHY unless CG somehow interviewed them afterwards.

         • anke wrote:

           A driver acting just on reflexes is a danger to everyone.

           Why did you add the “JUST” to my statement? I never wrote about acting “JUST” on reflexes.

           But coming back to the topic: People complained about the poor behaviour of the driver of the white car. I made a comment that this behaviour was poor, but should have been expected by the cyclist.

           I believe that just complaining, amongst cyclists, won’t help anyone. Learning from these videos, however, is a great way of improving our own cycling and our awarenes of potential dangers. And this is the spirit I’m writing in. 

           But I’m not stopping anyone from complaining or whinging about a driver in video…

           — anke

           I added ‘JUST’ to highlight the absurdity and danger of driving and not thinking about what you are doing. Possibly the most important time to be thinking and paying attention is when you are performing a traffic maneouvre, such as pulling out from a side road. Do you consider the driver was thinking about the danger they pose to other road users with their lack of observation?

           Why did you mention drivers acting on reflexes if you actually meant drivers acting on careful consideration?

         • Do you apply careful

           Do you apply careful consideration before hitting the emergency break (lever or pedal)? Do you apply careful consideration about turning that handlebar to the left when leaning to the right? Do you apply careful consideration when signalling a turn (hands or indicator)?

           If you carefully think about these things, you might be missing the time to think about more important questions like “can I pull out of the side road safely now or not”…

         • Generally, the situations

           Generally, the situations that require an emergency brake are very self-evident and you’ve already gone past the point of careful consideration (or the person causing the danger did not carefully consider what they are doing).

           When turning, I take into consideration the road surface – especially if there are ironworks and/or potholes – you do not want to be turning whilst also negotiating a hazard.

           Always give careful consideration when performing a turn/maneouvre. If you’re driving, then there’s the Mirror-Signal-(Mirror)-Maneouvre to be followed. Performing a turn on auto-pilot is dangerous and inconsiderate.

           I don’t think you’re really grasping that the driver of the white car was the only person creating a dangerous situation here, so I shan’t bother replying to you anymore.

           Have a good day™

         • I don’t think you’re really

           I don’t think you’re really grasping that the driver of the white car was the only person creating a dangerous situation here, so I shan’t bother replying to you anymore.

           It seems you’re not grasping that I never doubted that the driver of the car was creating the dangerous situation. You could read my posts and would have to agree.

           I merely noted that the danger created by the white car could be (and has been) reduced by wise actions of the cyclist – which included foreseeing the stupid move by the white car.

         • I assume you are just bored

           I assume you are just bored today.

           You keep repeating what the cyclist should have expected without realising that they could stop in the distance they could see and from their actions were aware of the hazard and mitigated it.

           Do you have anything useful to contribute or are you just trying to play the contrarian?

         • Well, it seems I was the only

           Well, it seems I was the only one to not jump on the “what an idiot in the white car” bandwagen – by trying to consider the situation rather than just repeating the self-evident. 

           As a result, I attracted a lot of aggressive responses – and defended my point.

           Looking up at your comments, I am tempted to copy your question: “Do you have anything useful to contribute?”

         • Well, if you had read my

           Well, if you had read my comments, you would have read CGs comments and not even bothered with your “I’m trying to understand WHY the driver has reacted in the WRONG way”.

           And I will reiterate that if you think the scenario is confusing, then please don’t drive.

         • Well, if you had read my

           Well, if you had read my comments, you would have read CGs comments and not even bothered with your “I’m trying to understand WHY the driver has reacted in the WRONG way”.

           The aggressive comments that you made AFTER my original post would have stopped me from making my original post?

         • That wasn’t your original

           That wasn’t your original post though was it.

           You have come up with a fairly consistent theme of blaming the cyclist whilst trying to claim not to be.

         • I have not blamed the cyclist

           I have not blamed the cyclist anywhere – please produce some evidence or consider stopping the aggression. My original post started in the following way:

           >>

           anke | 43 posts | 8 hours ago. 2 likes 

           Poor driving by the white car. But the situation was not very clear for anyone (cross-roads, congestian, pedestrian crossing), and the difference in speed made the situation hard to predict for the frustrated and stressed (they all are) driver.

         • anke wrote:

           Well, it seems I was the only one to not jump on the “what an idiot in the white car” bandwagen – by trying to consider the situation rather than just repeating the self-evident. 

           — anke

           You said you tried to consider the situation?

           The cyclist was riding in such a way that they were able to successfully avoid a collision despite the actions of an inattentive driver who was more focussed on gaining a few seconds.  Yet you continue to critique the actions of the cyclist saying he could have done more.

           You say you are trying to figure out why the driver did what they did…. when it’s clear that they were not paying attention….. then you say things like “try and put yourself in the position of an annoyed frustrated driver” as if that is some kind of excuse for their actions, or to try and garner sympathy for the driver.

           Or “that the situation was not simple and perhaps not clear for the motorist, and that taking good care was required on all sides to avoid an accident”.  Whereas the situation is incredibly simple for the motorist.  They approached a give way junction and proceeded onto a main road without giving way to the road users who had priority.

         • “Whereas the situation is

           “Whereas the situation is incredibly simple for the motorist.  They approached a give way junction and proceeded onto a main road without giving way to the road users who had priority.”

           Simple? Really?

           One fast mover (bike) in almost stationary traffic? The car ahead of the cross roads stopped to invite the white car in (now or never)? A cyclist who was poorly visible while moving from a dark road, between trees and cars? A cyclist who had to stop anyway for the cross-roads? An (almost) invisible bike-lane on the cross roads, with awkward zig zag markings being just discussed here? A cyclist who was, perhaps, faster than what our driver might be used to?

           Great if that’s what simple to you – but it might not be for most motorists…

         • anke wrote:

           Simple? Really?

           One fast mover (bike) in almost stationary traffic? The car ahead of the cross roads stopped to invite the white car in (now or never)? A cyclist who was poorly visible while moving from a dark road, between trees and cars? A cyclist who had to stop anyway for the cross-roads? An (almost) invisible bike-lane on the cross roads, with awkward zig zag markings being just discussed here? A cyclist who was, perhaps, faster than what our driver might be used to?

           Great if that’s what simple to you – but it might not be for most motorists…

           — anke

           Yes simple it should be simple for every single driver of a vehicle or they should not be driving. I mean it’s put in really simple words in the highway code for them

           Rule 170
           Take extra care at junctions. You should watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see.

           Rule 172
           The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

           If they cannot understand simple straightforward things like that they should not be driving.

           Rule 170 is quite clear it puts the responsibility for taking care on the vehicle pulling out from the junction.  And I’m pretty certain I was taught by my driving instructor that if I am carrying out a maneuver, such as pulling out of a junction, that it is MY responsibilty to ensure that I carry the maneuver out safely.

         • anke wrote:

           “Whereas the situation is incredibly simple for the motorist.  They approached a give way junction and proceeded onto a main road without giving way to the road users who had priority.”

           Simple? Really?

           One fast mover (bike) in almost stationary traffic? The car ahead of the cross roads stopped to invite the white car in (now or never)? A cyclist who was poorly visible while moving from a dark road, between trees and cars? A cyclist who had to stop anyway for the cross-roads? An (almost) invisible bike-lane on the cross roads, with awkward zig zag markings being just discussed here? A cyclist who was, perhaps, faster than what our driver might be used to?

           Great if that’s what simple to you – but it might not be for most motorists…

           — anke

           Based on that, I think your hypothetical motorist really ought to just hand in their licence.

         • anke wrote:

           A cyclist who was poorly visible while moving from a dark road, between trees and cars?

           — anke

           You’re just making stuff up now. You can have no idea whatsoever how visible the cyclist was; what is clear from the video is that a) he had a strobing front light on, b) even if “dark roads, trees and cars” were in any way an excuse for not seeing him (they aren’t), he was out and in clear line of sight of the driver for at least 15 metres/4 seconds before the driver pulled out, and c) he was 3m away when the driver rolled over the stop line. The driver didn’t see him because s/he didn’t look, it’s as simple as that.

   • Very well thought out,

     Very well thought out, considered and balanced comment – such a shame the Stasi are already out in force 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I think you will find the

       I think you will find the collective term here is ‘police haters’ (except for nmotd 646 where everyone’s account was hacked).

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • …yes, I had not expected

       …yes, I had not expected this reaction!

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Not sure what’s confusing

     Not sure what’s confusing about giving way at a dashed line or, in this case, 2 dashed lines. Maybe all these junctions should be box junctions with cameras or there should be an offence of blocking a cycle lane.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • …just put yourself in the

       …just put yourself in the position of an annoyed, frustrated motorist stuck in a car, trying to finally make it onto the main road before the oncoming traffic arrives.

       And again: on my bike, I might have even waved the motorist in to finally join the main road – knowing that I’d have to stop in any case (at the pedestrian’s crossing). This type of interaction keeps motorists happy and friendly – and enourages them to take good care of cyclists. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • anke wrote:

         …just put yourself in the position of an annoyed, frustrated motorist stuck in a car, trying to finally make it onto the main road before the oncoming traffic arrives.

         And again: on my bike, I might have even waved the motorist in to finally join the main road – knowing that I’d have to stop in any case (at the pedestrian’s crossing). This type of interaction keeps motorists happy and friendly – and enourages them to take good care of cyclists. 

         — anke

         I bet you’d be doffing your cap as you come to a stop to allow the car to block the cycle lane.

         I don’t really understand why you’re trying to find excuses for dangerous driving – are there not enough drivers and cars on the road already? Maybe the best bet would be to remove those drivers that just have an emotional reaction (annoyance, frustration) to driving conditions and act instinctively without giving any thought to what they are doing. It’s especially poor driving when there’s the clear marking “give way to traffic on major road” at the end of that side road.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • You’re all right – but being

           You’re all right – but being right in traffic is a good way for shortening one’s life… Considering the weaknesses, failings, or emotional reactions of motorists can help staying alive. Complaining about these failings in a forum that is not read by motorists will not help anyone.

           So, I’m not excusing the motorist – I’m just pointing out why his/her behaviour was, unfortunately, to be expected, and that a cyclist should be prepared for this poor behaviour. This is a lesson we can take from these videos, and how we can benefit from such videos.

           By the way, we’ve been mostly missing that the motor traffic on the main road had stopped ahead of the cross roads for the sole purpose of letting the traffic enter from the side road. Our cyclist didn’t stop. Which is all within his/her rights, but not really polite and, as we’ve seen, more dangerous than also stopping there. 

         • What a load of tripe!

           What a load of tripe!

           By the way, we’ve been mostly missing that the motor traffic on the main road had stopped ahead of the cross roads for the sole purpose of letting the traffic enter from the side road.

           Factually incorrect – the traffic had stopped due to the pedestrian crossing.

           Our cyclist didn’t stop.

           Why on earth would a cyclist want to cede priority at each and every side road? Presumably you’ll play the ‘might is right’ card again, but that’s just a childish attitude and does nothing to help with road safety.

         • You still haven’t noticed:

           You still haven’t noticed: The car past the cross roads had stopped because of the pedestrian crossing. The car following (on the main road)  actually stopped ahead of the cross roads, to let traffic from the side road join the main road – instead of driving on (like our cyclist) and inhibiting the side road traffic from entering.

         • anke wrote:

           You still haven’t noticed: The car past the cross roads had stopped because of the pedestrian crossing. The car following (on the main road)  actually stopped ahead of the cross roads, to let traffic from the side road join the main road – instead of driving on (like our cyclist) and inhibiting the side road traffic from entering.

           — anke

           Your interpretation continues to try and blame the cyclist for not slowing down.  The car following on the main road (as you described it) stopped to keep the junction clear for cars wanting to turn from the opposite carriageway on the main road into the side road.

           And the cyclist would not have inhibited the side road traffic from entering because they would have been able to clear the junction, therefore they were not doing anything incorrect in their actions.

           And my final point….. just because someone has left a gap that you might be able to pull out into doesn’t absolve you of any responsibility for checking whether it is safe to go.

           To turn it round, imagine the black car was not there, and the driver of the white car had focussed all of their attention on the silver car letting them out of the junciton…. and had accelerated out of the junction without also checking that the pedestrian crossing was clear and had hit the pedestrian… would you say that the driver was at fault or the pedestrian?

         • Your interpretation continues

           Your interpretation continues to try and blame the cyclist for not slowing down. 

           No. I didn’t blame him/her. Go through my posts, I never wrote that the cyclist was at fault. I always agreed that the driver of the white car was. (I’d just have advised the cyclist to stop earlier – ahead of the cross roads, where the trailing cars had stopped.)

           To turn it round, imagine the black car was not there,

           It was. 

         • anke wrote:

           You still haven’t noticed: The car past the cross roads had stopped because of the pedestrian crossing. The car following (on the main road)  actually stopped ahead of the cross roads, to let traffic from the side road join the main road – instead of driving on (like our cyclist) and inhibiting the side road traffic from entering.

           — anke

           The driver was avoiding blocking the junction (rightly so) which would prevent vehicles from turning into the side road. They also happened to be “letting out” a car, but that is merely incidental and it’s very misleading to think that another driver can give permission for a driver to pull carelessly out of a side road – the onus is still on the driver performing a maneouvre to do it safely and not force other traffic to slow or stop to avoid a collision.

           The cyclist would not have been obstructing the side road as they had a clear lane in front of them – until the white car driver suddenly blocked it.

       • I will also sometimes allow

         I will also sometimes allow drivers into / out of side streets in this sort of situation, but I’m not sure why you’re talking about “finally” making it on to the main road as if they had been waiting – the offending driver hasn’t even arrived at the junction at the start of this clip. They arrive, wait momentarily while the driver in front clears the junction, then join the main road immediately, without looking for / noticing / giving due consideration to the cyclist. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • quiff wrote:

           I will also sometimes allow drivers into / out of side streets in this sort of situation, but I’m not sure why you’re talking about “finally” making it on to the main road as if they had been waiting – the offending driver hasn’t even arrived at the junction at the start of this clip. They arrive, wait momentarily while the driver in front clears the junction, then join the main road immediately, without looking for / noticing / giving due consideration to the cyclist. 

           — quiff

           Exactly….. anke is just clutching at straws trying hard to frantically justify the actions of a car…..

           I’m just wondering….. I’ve not seen many posts from nicmason of late…….. what are the chances he’s been banned and created anke with a new e-mail address?

         • I have no idea who nicmason

           I have no idea who nicmason is or was – are you clutching at a straw here… 😉

       • anke wrote:

         …just put yourself in the position of an annoyed, frustrated motorist stuck in a car, trying to finally make it onto the main road before the oncoming traffic arrives.

         — anke

         What has that got to do with anything?  Do you think that a police officer attending an assault should put themselves in the position of the annoyed frustrated person who has assaulted the victim to see what they would have done?  That’s not the way the law works I’m afraid.

         If the driver had waited like they were supposed to do, the cyclist would have been past them and they would still have had ample opportunity to pull out of the junction ahead of the silver car.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • anke wrote:

         …just put yourself in the position of an annoyed, frustrated motorist stuck in a car, trying to finally make it onto the main road before the oncoming traffic arrives.

         And again: on my bike, I might have even waved the motorist in to finally join the main road – knowing that I’d have to stop in any case (at the pedestrian’s crossing). This type of interaction keeps motorists happy and friendly – and enourages them to take good care of cyclists. 

         — anke

         Assuming that there was no cyclist following behind (which clearly I can’t know) the driver gained absolutely nothing by pulling out; and would have gained absolutely nothing by the cyclist waving them out.  They would still be able to pull out into the same position in the queue after the cyclist had gone past, because the other cars would not yet have moved.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Assuming that there was no

           Assuming that there was no cyclist following behind (which clearly I can’t know) the driver gained absolutely nothing by pulling out

           I find this hard to judge from a video, but would assume that this was not what the driver was thinking…

         • anke wrote:

           Assuming that there was no cyclist following behind (which clearly I can’t know) the driver gained absolutely nothing by pulling out

           — anke

           I find this hard to judge from a video, but would assume that this was not what the driver was thinking…— Steve K

           Your mistake may be assuming that the driver was thinking.

   • You have very low standards

     You have very low standards and expectations. Try to dream bigger.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I like your comment – but I’d

       I like your comment – but I’d rather not dream in a road-crash induced coma… 😉

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • anke wrote:

     Poor driving by the white car. But the situation was not very clear for anyone (cross-roads, congestian, pedestrian crossing), and the difference in speed made the situation hard to predict for the frustrated and stressed (they all are) driver. The driver slowly pulled out before the bike was close enough to be seen well – in traffic that moved so slowly and chaotically that the driver had to focus on things happening nearby. After getting going, the driver probably had to focus on the car in front, which might have stopped at any time. So, no excuses for the white cars — but many reasons for expecting its driver to make a mistake in a confusing situation.

     And then, the bike had to stop anyway at the pedestrian’s crossing – so no kinetic energy was wasted for slowing down for the white car. If roles were swapped (white car on main road, bike pulling in from side road), we might have even considered this a mild case of “must get in front”. Stretching things, you might also argue that the white car actually “shielded” the pedestrian crossing from the bike traffic…

     In summary: Yep, white car did someting slightly, stupid, a little ignorant and potentially dangerous, but in a highly confusing situation. The cyclist responded correctly by adjusting the speed (he had to stop at the pedestrian’s crossing anyway), and things were resolved.

     In the end, this is how we have to deal with confusing situations in traffic.

     The rider probably learned to be even more carful in such confusing situations, the driver probably learned to watch out more for (unexpected) cyclists.

     — anke

     Interesting how a driver cannot see a cyclist well….. yet in the video the cyclist has an unobstructed view of the car for several seconds before the driver pulls out.  What you actually meant was that the driver did not look to see if there was a cyclist merely looked at the gap left by the silver car at the junction and had to pull out.

     And I say they never looked with a great deal of confidence because once the black car in front of them moved they pulled forward over the give way line assuming that the carriageway was clear without slowing down or stopping to look.

     The traffic was not moving slowly or chaotically, the traffic was stopped.  And after getting going they had to focus on the car in front in case it stopped?  The car that pulled out of the junction in front of it was long gone before the white car reached the give way line, and the other vehicle was already stopped at the pedestrian crossing.  So the driver of the white car was doing a complete MGIF while there is still a gap there.

     And lets see if I understand you…. just because the cylcist may have had to stop at the pedestrian crossing somehow absolves the driver of pulling out of a junction without looking?

     If you find situations like that confusing, take your driving license, pop it in an envelope addressed to the DVLA in Swansea saying you are not capable of driving a car safely.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Interesting how a driver

       Interesting how a driver cannot see a cyclist well….. yet in the video the cyclist has an unobstructed view of the car for several seconds before the driver pulls out. 

       The cyclist arrived from a dark, tree-lined road, moving past stationary vehicles, on a very poorly marked bike-track. So, the cyclist did the right thing and slowed down, expecting poor behaviour from the car.

       And I say they never looked with a great deal of confidence

       They might have just looked too early – at a time suitable for the (almost) stationary cars but not for a moving bike.

       The traffic was not moving slowly or chaotically, the traffic was stopped.  And after getting going they had to focus on the car in front in case it stopped?  The car that pulled out of the junction in front of it was long gone before the white car reached the give way line, 

       Well, car’s should keep some separation, shouldn’t they? On bikes, we’ve become used to much quicker reaction and lower distances (unfortunately, largely due to dangerous motorists).

       And lets see if I understand you…. just because the cylcist may have had to stop at the pedestrian crossing somehow absolves the driver of pulling out of a junction without looking?

       Given the pedestrian crossing, the driver might have well assumed that any traffic would arrive slowly. Indeed, the car on the main road had stopped to let the cars enter the main road. (Which is polite and good practice – and was not noticed or copied by our cyclilst) — Which, nevertheless, does not absolve the driver of the white car from endangering the cyclist.

       If you find situations like that confusing, take your driving license, pop it in an envelope addressed to the DVLA in Swansea saying you are not capable of driving a car safely.

       You must be a super driver, unless you’re a little too convinced by your driving/riding skill… Did you notice (at first glance) that the cycle lane markings were worn off, poor and hardly visible on the wet road? Did you notice that the bike entered the cross-roads from a dark road, poorly visible between tress, signage and stationary cars? Did you notice that a pedestrian was crossing the road right at this point? Did you notice that drivers were desperate to get on the main road before the other cars will arrive again (traffic had stopped temporarily)? And did you even notice that the car on the main road had stopped (politely) to let other cars enter the main road (and that the cyclist just passed by the stopped cars – less polite and potentially dangerous in this situation)?

       If you’ve noticed all of this, with time left to process the information and to act accordingly in traffic, well done. If you didn’t, consider the situation confusing, slow down in time, and approach the situation carefully.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • anke wrote:

         If you find situations like that confusing, take your driving license, pop it in an envelope addressed to the DVLA in Swansea saying you are not capable of driving a car safely.

         You must be a super driver, unless you’re a little too convinced by your driving/riding skill… Did you notice (at first glance) that the cycle lane markings were worn off, poor and hardly visible on the wet road? Did you notice that the bike entered the cross-roads from a dark road, poorly visible between tress, signage and stationary cars? Did you notice that a pedestrian was crossing the road right at this point? Did you notice that drivers were desperate to get on the main road before the other cars will arrive again (traffic had stopped temporarily)? And did you even notice that the car on the main road had stopped (politely) to let other cars enter the main road (and that the cyclist just passed by the stopped cars – less polite and potentially dangerous in this situation)?

         If you’ve noticed all of this, with time left to process the information and to act accordingly in traffic, well done. If you didn’t, consider the situation confusing, slow down in time, and approach the situation carefully.

         — anke

         In response to your questions. 

         1. Yes I noticed the lane markings worn off.
         2. I noticed that the cyclist could clearly see the car for several seconds before the car cleared the junction, and that the cyclist had a high intensity flashing front light
         3. I noticed the pedestrian crossing the road in front of the black car.
         4. No the cars were not desperate to get onto the main road…. the white car in question drove into frame as the cyclist was approaching the same junction
         5. The car on the main road had stopped not to let cars out of the side road but to ensure that cars could leave the main road and go into the side road and as a byproduct would let a car or two out of the side road onto the main road.
         6. Yes I noticed all of that and would have been able to react accordingly.

         but lets get this straight you are conflagrating the responsibility of the driver with the responsibility of the cyclist and trying to blame the driver’s failing on the cyclist and you have a supporter in doing that in Nigel Garrage.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • No, I’m pointing out that the

           No, I’m pointing out that the cyclist was riding carelessly. No one has said that the white car didn’t make a mistake, but the driver could very well have inadvertently prevented a serious collision between the cyclist and the innocent pedestrian crossing the zebra crossing.

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           No, I’m pointing out that the cyclist was riding carelessly. No one has said that the white car didn’t make a mistake, but the driver could very well have inadvertently prevented a serious collision between the cyclist and the innocent pedestrian crossing the zebra crossing.

           — Nigel Garage

           How was the cyclist riding carelessly?

           1. they were riding in a cycle lane
           2. they were riding at a speed that they were able to avoid colliding with the car despite the car being the one entirely in the wrong.
           3. The had appropriate lights for the conditions

           As for your last point you again have taken your default position that the cyclist was going to plow through the pedstrian crossing without slowing down despite their view of the crossing being obstructed by other vehicles….. and tried to make it look like the driver was some kind of martyr by selflessly slowing down the hooligan on a bike on the approach to a pedestrian crossing.

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           No, I’m pointing out that the cyclist was riding carelessly. No one has said that the white car didn’t make a mistake, but the driver could very well have inadvertently prevented a serious collision between the cyclist and the innocent pedestrian crossing the zebra crossing.

           — Nigel Garage

           Seriously, how do you work that out?  In what way was he riding carelessly? The cyclist was able – despite the dangerous driving by the white car – to avoid any collision quite comfortably; why on earth would you therefore conclude that he would not have been able to stop for the pedestrian crossing?

         • but lets get this straight

           but lets get this straight you are conflagrating the responsibility of the driver with the responsibility of the cyclist and trying to blame the driver’s failing on the cyclist

           I’m not doing this. 

           Is this forum a) a resource for learning about road-safety and on how to be save on a bike (even considering the many failings of motorists), or is it just b) an “opinion bubble” where we may just repeat the obvious (that a motorist did something stupid) without trying to take our lessons from it?

         • anke wrote:

           Is this forum a) a resource for learning about road-safety and on how to be save on a bike (even considering the many failings of motorists), or is it just b) an “opinion bubble” where we may just repeat the obvious (that a motorist did something stupid) without trying to take our lessons from it?

           — anke

           c) a place for posing false dichotomies.

         • anke wrote:

           Is this forum a) a resource for learning about road-safety and on how to be save on a bike (even considering the many failings of motorists), or is it just b) an “opinion bubble” where we may just repeat the obvious (that a motorist did something stupid) without trying to take our lessons from it?

           — anke

           That very much sounds like “If you do everything that a responsible cyclist should and still get an incident with a motorist you obviously did something wrong because you never expected/learned that the motorist would do something stupid”

         • That very much sounds like

           That very much sounds like “If you do everything that a responsible cyclist should and still get an incident with a motorist you obviously did something wrong because you never expected/learned that the motorist would do something stupid”

           …if there still is an incident (like in this video), you might not have done something wrong – but perhaps you could have done better to avoid the incident.

           It’s a bit like falling victim to a crime: There are certain things we all do to protect ourselves from unnecessary risks.

         • anke wrote:

           …if there still is an incident (like in this video), you might not have done something wrong – but perhaps you could have done better to avoid the incident.

           It’s a bit like falling victim to a crime: There are certain things we all do to protect ourselves from unnecessary risks.

           — anke

           Ah so now you are making your intentions known….pure and simple victim blaming

         • How charming. Has “victim

           How charming. Has “victim blaming” become synonymous with any sort of “good advice” – even if there’s not even a victim…?!

         • anke wrote:

           How charming. Has “victim blaming” become synonymous with any sort of “good advice” – even if there’s not even a victim…?!

           — anke

           Lets address your victim blaming…..

           It’s a bit like falling victim to a crime: There are certain things we all do to protect ourselves from unnecessary risks.

           — anke

           ^^^ That there is 100% straight victim blaming in its implying that the victim of a crime could have done more to protect themselves

           You keep trying to suggest excuses for the drivers actions and suggest that the cyclist could have done more.

           And don’t try to deny it because it is there in black and white in lots of your comments. Here are a few of your direct quotes where you provide excuses for the driver or suggest the cyclist could do more.  (You also use my favourite of “I’m not excusing the motorist” before you go on to give reasons as to why the did what they did…aka giving excuses for the motorist)

           I simply wrote my comments as I feel fellow cyclists should be aware that the situation was not simple and perhaps not clear for the motorist

           — anke

           So, I’m not excusing the motorist – I’m just pointing out why his/her behaviour was, unfortunately, to be expected, and that a cyclist should be prepared for this poor behaviour.

           — anke

           Foreseeing that a driver might also ignore a  cycle lane may be a life saver…

           — anke

           They might have just looked too early – at a time suitable for the (almost) stationary cars but not for a moving bike.

           — anke

            

         • anke wrote:

           That very much sounds like “If you do everything that a responsible cyclist should and still get an incident with a motorist you obviously did something wrong because you never expected/learned that the motorist would do something stupid”

           …if there still is an incident (like in this video), you might not have done something wrong – but perhaps you could have done better to avoid the incident.

           It’s a bit like falling victim to a crime: There are certain things we all do to protect ourselves from unnecessary risks.

           — anke

           I feel in the vast majority of collisions (not accidents) are the result of someone doing something wrong, and other drivers road users not making allowances for them.

           In this case there was no collision because the cyclist was aware of their surroundings and took apropriate action, so there is no need for comments about what they might have done better. They did everything nevesary to avoid a collision which would have been caused by the white car.

   • anke wrote:

     The driver slowly pulled out before the bike was close enough to be seen well

     — anke

     The driver crossed the stop line when the cyclist was less than a lane’s width from him/her; it’s clear from the reflections on the back of cars and street signs that the cyclist was carrying a strobing front light. If someone can’t spot a full-grown adult cyclist with lights on from three metres away (or finds being approached by one “highly confusing”, to use your phrase) that’s not the minor problem you appear to be saying it is – it would lead to an immediate fail on a driving test, for a start, and rightly so.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • The driver crossed the stop

       The driver crossed the stop line when the cyclist was less than a lane’s width from him/her;

       …but started rolling slowly a lot earlier, and we speculated already that the driver might have looked (to her right) too early, and we also discussed why he/she might have done so…

       that’s not the minor problem you appear to be saying it is – it would lead to an immediate fail on a driving test, for a start, and rightly so.

       I agree. But we can probably also agree that most drivers would fail a driving test at any later point in time – and that drivers, hence, are better treated like a slightly unpredictable danger…

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Mixed on this. The driver

     Mixed on this. The driver almost certainly didn’t look. So different timings could have seen collision and possibly injury (spoiler – not to the driver).

     I’ll ignore the “pedestrian” comment however I do take the point about the environment though. What we have here is:

     • A road which is clearly “busy” because there’s an “access road” along the left side of it.
     • An advisory cycle lane (broken white line). This is where the crapness begins.
     • Even the “advisory” lane gives up at the junction because there’s a zebra crossing and I think these legally have to have nothing but the wavy lines for a certain distance before them (please check full legal position with kerb nerds though).
     • So the motorist – even had they looked – would not find it easy to see the presence of the cycle lane because not a different colour tarmac and the markings finished before the junction.
     • They might also have been watching for traffic on the “access road” as well as the main road and – had they been a bit sharper – would have picked up there was a zebra crossing immediately to their left.
     • Should the driver have been competent to deal with this? Yes. Could they have expected a cyclist to be in that position regardless of markings? Yes.  Could this layout be made simpler and thus safer? Yes.
     • Aside – doesn’t appear to be any “infra” for cycling on the other side. This is quite common – because cyclists only go down one side of roads of course! Or rather “we will only pay for paint and so we can only squeeze one cycle lane + 2 motor vehicle lanes between the existing kerbs”. Your minds are too narrow…

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • chrisonatrike wrote:

       • Even the “advisory” lane gives up at the junction because there’s a zebra crossing and I think these legally have to have nothing but the wavy lines for a certain distance before them (please check full legal position with kerb nerds though).

       — chrisonatrike

       I think the cycle lane does continue past the junction and over the crossing – the zigzag line is further out than usual, in line with the cycle lane markings, suggesting they’re intended as a lane divider rather than edge markings.

       I’m going to go ahead and suggest, though, that even if that is the case, next to nobody emerging from that junction would recognise that they were meant to indicate a cycle lane.

       And it’s just another indication of the uselessness of bits of white paint as an attempt at ‘protecting’ cyclists.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I don’t know why they do that

         I don’t know why they do that with “cycle lanes” at junctions. I could understand it if they kept the cycle lane visible (e.g. with different coloured surface) across the junction, but with dashed lines to allow vehicles into and out of the side road, but to remove it entirely, but then have the zig-zag lines go by the side of the now invisible cycle lane is sending a confused message. Presumably, the zig-zags are at the edge of the roadway which implies that the cycle lane is still in effect across the side road junction.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Agree with what you wrote
     Agree with what you wrote there anke, and please don’t feel put off speaking your truth by some of the troll replies.

     The cyclist in the clip was riding carelessly. Along with what you’ve already written (the white car shouldn’t have pulled out but was unsighted by the street furniture), he was approaching an unsighted zebra crossing with stationary cars (indicating the presence of a pedestrian), on the hoods, head down, straining every sinew, with no intention of slowing despite the environment demanding caution. A typically self-entitled clip I’m afraid.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • [4 points on this, but

       [4 points on this, but decided not to feed the troll]

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Nigel Garage wrote:

       Agree with what you wrote there anke, and please don’t feel put off speaking your truth by some of the troll replies. The cyclist in the clip was riding carelessly. Along with what you’ve already written (the white car shouldn’t have pulled out but was unsighted by the street furniture), he was approaching an unsighted zebra crossing with stationary cars (indicating the presence of a pedestrian), on the hoods, head down, straining every sinew, with no intention of slowing despite the environment demanding caution. A typically self-entitled clip I’m afraid.

       — Nigel Garage

       The problem with speaking the truth is that it actually has to be, you know, true.

       1. At 4-7s on the video the white car has a completely unobstructed view and still decides to pull out

       2. Head position is not shown on the video

       3. If you think that cyclist was straining every sinew you are a far weaker cyclist than I would have thought

       4.  Intention is not shown on the video

       5.  He did slow down when the incompetent driving caused him to do so, and was obviously capable of coming to a complete stop well before the crossing.

        But you are correct that the car shouldn’t have pulled out, so perhaps some learning is going on here.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Nigel, thank you for your

       Nigel, thank you for your suppport, but I don’t agree entirely. The cyclist slowed down early (fingers pulling the breaks) and probably wasn’t really fast – and resolved the situation well in the end. (He/she could have waited with the main traffic for letting in the traffic from the side road, but the required level of “situational awareness” might be difficult to have for motorists as for cyclists.)

       I simply wrote my comments as I feel fellow cyclists should be aware that the situation was not simple and perhaps not clear for the motorist, and that taking good care was required on all sides to avoid an accident – whereas just complaining about motorists in videos won’t save lifes.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • anke wrote:

         [ … ] I simply wrote my comments as I feel fellow cyclists should be aware that the situation was not simple and perhaps not clear for the motorist, and that taking good care was required on all sides to avoid an accident – whereas just complaining about motorists in videos won’t save lifes.

         — anke

         But what will definitely save lives? Luminous clothing? No. Cyclist making noise? No. Establishing eye contact? No. Cyclist following the rules and then some? No. Cyclists being “extra cautious” or “experienced”? No. Courtesy and politeness? No. Protective equipment? No.

         These things may have an impact but there have been deaths where these were used and had no impact at all. (Road.cc, read all about it). And when a vehicle impacts you – because someone driving it didn’t keep their side of the bargain – they’re pretty meaningless.

         Without designing the danger out – or reducing it much lower than present – your alternatives are to put your fingers in your ears, blame the victims, or do something about the issue. Two possibilities for that one: “remove the danger” through design – including just not having motor vehicles there. Or drivers have to accept that they are voluntarily engaging in a potentially lethal activity, that proportionately greater responsibility rests with them and that they should face sanction if they endanger or damage people or property. Even if that is just that their licence (or license in US) is revoked. (And of course that they’re banged up if caught driving without it.)

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I agree with your long term

           I agree with your long term aim of designing the danger out. But how realistic is this in the short term?

           The measures that you mention in the first paragraph are not perfect – but they do help and are worth exploiting.

         • anke wrote:

           I agree with your long term aim of designing the danger out. But how realistic is this in the short term?

           The measures that you mention in the first paragraph are not perfect – but they do help and are worth exploiting.

           — anke

           According to some people (even some on here too) none of these measures are realistic because “these things just happen sometimes” or “half of one…” or even “brought it upon themselves by being on the roads”.

           As far as “realistic” and “short term” – there isn’t anything short term in trying to make big changes. I think it’s more realistic than:

           • Expecting people to become better drivers / humans.
           • Expecting changing the law will have that effect.
           • Expecting that we’ll suddenly abolish cars (sorry one poster here).
           • …or that technology will fix this (apologies to others).
           • Expecting any of the political parties at a national level will fix this.  Although in Scotland I’m now a little more optimistic about the direction of travel.

           I try to bang on more outside the internet of cyclists about this too. A little experience with (local) authorities suggests that it’s as much about holding back the flood as draining the swamp but sometimes things change. I note in the Netherlands when they started to think about taming the car cycling had still not declined to the tiny level of the UK. However there were still some serious fights over this over the 40 plus years until the present.

           What I think a lot of the “protect yourself” measures share is (good) they’re cheap, you can do them yourself – and thus they may make you feel better / more in control of your destiny. So I exploit many of these measures as I’m sure most of us do.  On the flip side they’re of debatable efficacy, it’s up to individuals to do them (and it may count against you if you don’t – even in court) and they don’t deal with the root cause. It’s trying to fix the issue from the bottom of the hierarchy of hazard controls.

       • anke wrote:

         Nigel, thank you for your suppport, but I don’t agree entirely. The cyclist slowed down early (fingers pulling the breaks) and probably wasn’t really fast – and resolved the situation well in the end. (He/she could have waited with the main traffic for letting in the traffic from the side road, but the required level of “situational awareness” might be difficult to have for motorists as for cyclists.)

         I simply wrote my comments as I feel fellow cyclists should be aware that the situation was not simple and perhaps not clear for the motorist, and that taking good care was required on all sides to avoid an accident – whereas just complaining about motorists in videos won’t save lifes.

         — anke

         Thanks for clarifying your position anke, which I think is a very generous interpretation of the cyclist’s actions.

         You’ll note that some people here think you’re being too hard on the cyclist and others too soft, so you’re effectively the “centre-ground” in this debate… which probably gives your voice the highest validity here.

         So for that reason I hope you don’t feel intimidated by some of the more trollish anti-motorist sentiment you’ve been subjected to. You have to remember that some posters would like an echo-chamber style forum and will attack anyone that deviates from their point of view.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Nigel Garage]

           [quote=anke]

           You’ll note that some people here think you’re being too hard on the cyclist and others too soft, so you’re effectively the “centre-ground” in this debate

           — anke</strong><br /><p>[quote=Nigel Garage

           A quick scan of the comments shows that 26 commenters feel that anke is being “too hard on the cyclist”, 4 agree with him/her, and I can’t see a single one that says s/he’s being too soft on them. You really need to work on your tangential realtionship with the truth. Even anke him/herself doesn’t actually agree with you.

         • ooh Nigel is back!  Thought

           ooh Nigel is back!  Thought you had run away after being wrong so many times!

           The problem with speaking the truth is that it actually has to be, you know, true.

           1. At 4-7s on the video the white car has a completely unobstructed view and still decides to pull out

           2. Head position is not shown on the video

           3. If you think that cyclist was straining every sinew you are a far weaker cyclist than I would have thought

           4.  Intention is not shown on the video

           5.  He did slow down when the incompetent driving caused him to do so, and was obviously capable of coming to a complete stop well before the crossing.
            

           but you have yet another logical fallacy to inflict on us today!  What joy

           You’ll note that some people here think you’re being too hard on the cyclist and others too soft, so you’re effectively the “centre-ground” in this debate… which probably gives your voice the highest validity here. So for that reason I hope you don’t feel intimidated by some of the more trollish anti-motorist sentiment you’ve been subjected to. You have to remember that some posters would like an echo-chamber style forum and will attack anyone that deviates from their point of view.

           — Nigel Garage

           So, just to be clear the centre ground of any debate does not automatically, logically or reasonably have the highest validity so your “probably” is again wrong. 
            

           For instance, racicism=bad vs racism=good does not balance out to a little bit of racism is ok then. Likewise climate change=a real and genuine problem vs climate change=doesn’t exist and covid=real pandemic vs covid=scamdemic. 
            

           Objective truth exists, you are wrong. 

     • Nigel Garage wrote:

       Agree with what you wrote there anke, and please don’t feel put off speaking your truth by some of the troll replies. The cyclist in the clip was riding carelessly. Along with what you’ve already written (the white car shouldn’t have pulled out but was unsighted by the street furniture), he was approaching an unsighted zebra crossing with stationary cars (indicating the presence of a pedestrian), on the hoods, head down, straining every sinew, with no intention of slowing despite the environment demanding caution. A typically self-entitled clip I’m afraid.

       — Nigel Garage

       Do you remember that clip filmed from a doorbell camera of the cyclist getting rear-ended? You know, where you posted a whole lot of stuff about what had happened and how he was cycling.  Which was then proved to be wrong when the cyclist came on here and said what really happened.

       Yes, that.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • As I have already said –

     As I have already said – ‘Easy, easy. Balance NOT wanted on Road.cc’.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. In a positive note; Cyclegaz
   On a positive note; Cyclegaz was making awesome progress on his commute compared to the drivers stuck in traffic. A great ad for cycle commuting.?

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. Well that new Mamnick rig

   Well that new Mamnick rig looks like just the job for dealing with bikejackers…

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. No f++ks given by Mamnick I

    No f++ks given by Mamnick I see. While I applaud their couldn’t care less attitude and witty repartee, I can’t help but wonder what this yorkshire based brand was thinking giving a model a pretend sub machine gun to show off their wares. I can only think that they were thinking that an ‘action man’ theme (as in the toys) might be a fitting brand angle. But then again.. that’s clearly where the thought process rather abrutly ended. 

    OR.. maybe they are starting a yorkshire based gang who are gonna cycle around Sheffield in expensive jerseys firing BB guns in pedal-by shootings. whilst shouting ‘bang! bang! bang! …. I’d sort of like to see that, I think it might work well in Sheffield.

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • I will admit that I’m

      I will admit that I’m actually a bit scared of guns, I’ve not had much exposure to them over the years.

      Having said that, only on Sunday, after three close passes in a short stretch of road, I was thinking how nice it would be to have a handgun mounted on the handlebars to shoot out those fuckers wheels!!

      Maybe Mamnick are onto something! 

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Guns don’t kill people,

        Guns don’t kill people, cyclists do:

         

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • peted76 wrote:

      No f++ks given by Mamnick I see. While I applaud their couldn’t care less attitude and witty repartee, I can’t help but wonder what this yorkshire based brand was thinking giving a model a pretend sub machine gun to show off their wares. I can only think that they were thinking that an ‘action man’ theme (as in the toys) might be a fitting brand angle. But then again.. that’s clearly where the thought process rather abrutly ended. 

      OR.. maybe they are starting a yorkshire based gang who are gonna cycle around Sheffield in expensive jerseys firing BB guns in pedal-by shootings. whilst shouting ‘bang! bang! bang! …. I’d sort of like to see that, I think it might work well in Sheffield.

       

      — peted76

      maybe they were thinking all publicity is good publicity and engaging in guerilla marketing. After all I had never heard of them before and now I have.

      Personally I was more put off by their 70s sci fi styling than the presence of a gun.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • I can’t believe you’ve never

        I can’t believe you’ve never heard of Mamnick.. where have you been all these years..  they are famous for selling stainless steel chip forks! 

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • Their response to the Twitter
      Their response to the Twitter mob has definitely sent them up in my estimation.

      Log In or Register to post comments

11. I think there’s the

    I think there’s the opportunity for a readers’ poll here.

    What non-cycling-related object should someone be holding to persuade you to buy the clothes they’re modelling?

    1) A hen

    2) A box of cornflakes

    3) A trombone

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. I think we should be

    I think we should be promoting the use of air horns whever possible, here’s one recharable with a hand pump – https://www.tcschandlery.co.uk/ecoblast-rechargeable-air-horn/p7055&nbsp;

    If there were air horns going off around our cities as many times are they could be used appropriatley (e.g. LOADS).. then that would spark a whole other angle to the conversation. Imagine all the normal car drivers getting a shock as one close by bad driver gets a honk, imagine that 20times a journey.. I’d like to think that good drivers might at some point in their annoyance, start to villify bad driving/drivers and not ‘just’ the cycling menace.

    (Of course that might be an idealogical pipe dream, but.. meh.. I’ve not really given it much thought tbh).

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • peted76 wrote:

      I think we should be promoting the use of air horns whever possible, 

      — peted76

      I’m thinking if a small pebble somehow happened to get jammed in and it was used as a warning for close passing cars…

      Log In or Register to post comments

13. Not sure about the gun, but

    Not sure about the gun, but otherwise it’s a good look.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Tom_77 wrote:

      Not sure about the gun, but otherwise it’s a good look.

      — Tom_77

      Were there three people in the pet shop boys? I thought there were only two.

      Log In or Register to post comments

14. Personally, I always use the
    Personally, I always use the road like someone’s going to pull out on me at every junction, even when in a car!

    When cycling beside slow moving or stationary traffic, I always slow down significantly as all vehicles could be concealing a hazard.

    I frequently see cars pull out and straddle the nearside lane when there’s traffic flowing in the direction they are turning, blocking the opposite traffic flow until someone let’s them in. Not just when cycling.

    I also frequently see cyclists completely ignore pedestrian crossings and traffic lights…

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Skalamanga wrote:

      Personally, I always use the road like someone’s going to pull out on me at every junction, even when in a car! When cycling beside slow moving or stationary traffic, I always slow down significantly as all vehicles could be concealing a hazard. I frequently see cars pull out and straddle the nearside lane when there’s traffic flowing in the direction they are turning, blocking the opposite traffic flow until someone let’s them in. Not just when cycling. I also frequently see cyclists completely ignore pedestrian crossings and traffic lights…

      — Skalamanga

      Cool story, bro

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • …cooler than whinging and

        …cooler than whinging and whining about the white car…

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • Skalamanga wrote:

      Personally, I always use the road like someone’s going to pull out on me at every junction, even when in a car!

      — Skalamanga

      In that case, the car must be still at home or you are playing a video game.

       

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • Skalamanga wrote:

      Personally, I always use the road like someone’s going to pull out on me at every junction, even when in a car! When cycling beside slow moving or stationary traffic, I always slow down significantly as all vehicles could be concealing a hazard. I frequently see cars pull out and straddle the nearside lane when there’s traffic flowing in the direction they are turning, blocking the opposite traffic flow until someone let’s them in. Not just when cycling. I also frequently see cyclists completely ignore pedestrian crossings and traffic lights…

      — Skalamanga

      You had everyone’s attention until you threw in that last sentence and overplayed your hand.  Nice try, though.

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • Easy, easy!

      Easy, easy!

      Balance is NOT welcome on Road.cc.

      We cyclists are ALWAYS in the right, it seems!

      Even when we’re in the wrong.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • But (trying to bring this sh

        But (trying to bring this sh!tsh0w back on topic) – the white car coming out of the junction was in the wrong, and the cyclist riding along in the cycle lane was in the right.  Whatever “anke” thinks.

         

        Seriously – are there a whole bunch of different trolls on this site or are they all sockpuppets for one person?

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • brooksby wrote:

          trying to bring this sh!tsh0w back on topic

          — brooksby

          Fascist!

          Log In or Register to post comments

        • Dear brooksby,

          Dear brooksby,

          I never showed any doubt that the white car was in the wrong and the cyclist was right. Check the posts to convince yourself. This endless discussion is due to some guys who, apparently, did not read my posts but spread made up  claims about them. Not sure why you have joined this witch hunt.

          Log In or Register to post comments

15. Oh dear, looks like

    Oh dear, looks like Socrapicyclist is now calling themselves anke.  Another one I won’t be responding to any more.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • My dear eburtthebike, I have

      My dear eburtthebike, I have no idea who Socrapicyclist was or is, I just know that your assumption is wrong. But in all honesty, I may not get overly sentimental about your missing “responses”…

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Another point while I am here

        Another point while I am here.  You have no lacking of irony in your comments 

        Indeed, the car on the main road had stopped to let the cars enter the main road. (Which is polite and good practice – and was not noticed or copied by our cyclilst)

        — anke

        You are basically saying that leaving a gap to allow others to pull out is good practice….. and saying that the cyclist never copied that… all the while ignoring the fact that the driver of the white car pulled across the cycle lane and blocked the entire cycle lane.

        I’m assuming you don’t think that the driver of the white car should have followed the good practice of leaving a gap in the cycle lane to allow the cyclist to carry on in their lane without impediment?

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • Anything which goes against

          Anything which goes against the normal priorities for traffic increases risk, so it can’t be good practice.

          Log In or Register to post comments

16. “Honestly, we were shocked

    “Honestly, we were shocked and appalled that someone had gone to such lengths to reverse the decision that was finally democratically made after 16 months.”

    I thought that the point was that it wasn’t democratic, with the Councillor in charge of roads ignoring requests to reconsider by his own council and against the wishes of most locals.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • “This is an illegal act of

      “This is an illegal act of vandalism that needs to be dealt with by the police…”

      Yeah, like they always do when wands/bollards get removed from a pop-up cycle lane because someone can’t park their SUV right outside a certain Greek pastry shop on Park Row, Bristol a shop 

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • It looks to me like the

      It looks to me like the removal was approved by a committee comprising three Councillors representing the Greens (who Chair the Commitee), Labour &  Conservatives.  https://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=865&MId=10635

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • If I remember rightly there

        If I remember rightly there are 2 bits of old Shoreham road covered by 2 different councils?  Both of which have ripped out bike lanes.  Hence the confusion.  Might not be exactly that but I believe thats the gist.  The first was definately ripped out by some one who hadn’t visited it and was asked to reconsider by his scrutiny commitee.

         

        Log In or Register to post comments

17. Hang on a minute lads…

    Hang on a minute lads… those sunglasses are made from beans! 

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Glasses made of beans? Do me

      Glasses made of beans? Do me a fava…

      Log In or Register to post comments

18. Mamnick. Meh.

    Mamnick. Meh.

    They like to tweet about cycling and fishing. But nobody paid much attention so they decided to be “edgy”.
    Tweeted their favourite right-wing authors and anti-lockdown cospiracy theorists, but nobody really bit.
    So they tried with an anti-trans joke. Because they’re so “anti-woke”. But that didn’t get them much media attention either.
    Made some ads showing cyclists with guns coz they made a biathlon kit. That seemed to trigger a bit of a response. But they wanted more. So more “edgy” responses to prove how “free thinking” they are. ANd here they are getting free advertising.

    Apparently there’s a market for the cycling, shooting n fishing set. Who knew?
    I’ll pass.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • They’ve been going for 10
      They’ve been going for 10 years apparently and from the looks of it do all their manufacturing in the UK.

      Must be a market for them even if they do commit the occasional bit of thought crime.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • On their website it says “the

        On their website it says “the majority of the Mamnick inventory is manufactured in South Yorkshire” but also “We continue to find and work with a number of different factories in Japan to continue to develop our fine products under the Mamnick ‘Black Label’ collection”, so not 100% UK manufacture. Most of the fishing gear and their wool products boast “Made in England” in the description but none of the lycra cycling clothing has any provenance listed so probably safe to assume that’s made in the Far East.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • Fair enough. I hadn’t noticed
          Fair enough. I hadn’t noticed the Made in Japan stuff but there are only 5 items in that collection.

          Lack of provenance on the lycra probably does mean it’s made outside UK.

          Still commendable to do as much in the UK as they do.

          Log In or Register to post comments

19. Geraint Thomas’s trust sounds

    Geraint Thomas’s trust sounds very laudable. However, I can’t help seeing issues with its longevity.

    It appears to be intending to duplicate the work of existing organisations (notably CUK/CTC).

    And good luck with the “network of community volunteer mentors”. Not only does that require real money but it will also need council support & investment and, most crucially, people willing to give up their time and energy. In the face of the hostility on the roads, the unwillingness of many councils and other bodies to genuinely support or promote active travel and the massive shortage of volunteers on the ground I can’t see it getting very far.

    I’d like to be wrong but it just looks like a bit of a vanity project.

    As for Mamnick, it looks like yet another kitchen-table brand trying to milk a lucrative market. ZZzzzzz…

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Simon E wrote:

      I’d like to be wrong but it just looks like a bit of a vanity project.

      — Simon E

      I was thinking the same thing.  If systems and organisations already exist to do something, why re-invent the wheel?  It will just split resources and sow confusion, of which there is already a sufficiency.

      Log In or Register to post comments