"I don't think the cab driver did anything wrong": CyclingMikey defends taxi driver seen pulling into cycle lane (and attracting cyclist's anger) to let fire engine pass; Cat Ferguson wins again; Decathlon helmet recall; Cleat chat + more on the live blog

Looks like a "cycling superhypeway" to me!

TBF even in NL you can still find cycle lanes on-road *.  BUT they have actual cycle networks so often there might be a nearby excellent alternative!

I believe in NL they're often looking to upgrade this kind of thing to either cycle paths or - quite often - to make the street a "bicycle street".  In addition in such places generally the speed limits are low and motor traffic may be less.

Finally I believe a majority of drivers have got the message there.  Still not all though - pointing to the fact that where there is still "mass motoring" we will probably need to build "cycle infra".

* Cycle lanes not necessarily with "protection" either.  Ultimately I think that's the right way to go as that's just another thing for people to ride into / trip over on.  Unfortunately in the UK drivers have got used to being able to drive and leave their vehicles everywhere with effectively zero consequences.  So we do need physical measures (and ideally more "policing") to strongly discourage this.

The cycle lane at the north (Lambeth bridge) end isn't too bad and is as wide as it could be given the width of the road (though the southbound lane has got a little rough now).

When the road widens and the buses cut across the lane to the bus stop is poor and needs a whole redesign.

Technically there is an exemption to the laws re crossing solid white lines for access, which would apply here for accessing the parking bays.

Arguably technically the taxi should either stop and let the fire engine use the bays + cycle lane to pass, or pull fully across the cycle lane into said bays.

In practice both still leave the rider needing to stop - one to allow the taxi to cross their path and the other to allow the fire engine to cross path.

Rather than predicting the completely predictable hazard from blue lights approaching from behind, the rider decided to overtake another rider in front of them (going from cycle lane to main carriageway and so risking blocking the fire engine themselves) reducing the margin of error for people panicing about getting out of the fire engines way...

Yep, I was going to say - not only would I have no issue with the taxi in that situation, I also wouldn't have overtaken the cyclist in front of me. No situational awareness.

For me it depends if the taxi driver saw the fire engine, but did the overtake & pull in anyway.

I agree it's not one to get het up about but like what was wrong with the cycle lane space behind the cyclist ?

Agree with all of your points and you're correct it's on Millbank approaching Vauxhall Bridge.

Only wanted to say that the lane splits into two very shortly after fire engine passes. It becomes a regular lane on the right and a bus lane on the left, which the taxi driver is allowed to use at all times anyway. And the cycle lane merges into the bus lane. So even in the most obstructive scenario it'd only be 50-100m or so before there's a whole extra lane for an emergency vehicle. They'd then of course have to deal with potentially a large amount of stationary traffic at Vauxhall Bridge but that's another matter.

But yes, there were multiple decision points to easily avoid throwing your hands up in mock surprise at what happened.

I think it's mostly ANPR fines for moving into a bus lanes rather than prosecutions - for an prosecution I would imagine it would have to be something like pulling dangerously into someone else's path to get out the way and/or actually causing a collision.

I don't see a bug prob with letting the ANPR bus lane fines stand, because clearly the best approach is to leave the bus lane clear for the emergency vehicle if they want to use it ... and there's plenty of folk who will just use the excuse of a blue light to dodge into a bus lane for their own benefit, just like the ones who tailgate emergency vehicles through lights / junctions etc

It's clearly utter lack of sense to object to what this tax driver did though - calm, safely observed, timed and indicated, brief stopover to let the vehicle pass, and then moved back out again.

I don't agree that the cyclist should have been "slowing down" to let the fire engine past though - fire engine can pass in the main lane quite safely without cyclists on the cycle lane needing to stop/slow. I'd just carry on, but I would also assume the taxi would be pulling in - and I'd be checking carefully at any junctions, and probably slow or stop just in case it needs to take a turn across my path ... I'd rather they didn't have to wait for me to clear.

Velo-drone wrote:

 I don't agree that the cyclist should have been "slowing down" to let the fire engine past though - fire engine can pass in the main lane quite safely without cyclists on the cycle lane needing to stop/slow.

I'd respectfully disagree with that, I always slow down and pull over as close to the kerb as possible for emergency vehicles, stopping as you rightly suggest if there are any turns or junctions they might need to negotiate ahead. The reason I do that is I feel that by slowing down and moving over, even if there is enough room for them to pass without me doing so, it lets the driver know that I've registered that they are coming and that I'm not going to do anything stupid or panicked as they pass. Just trying to do a little bit to help by giving them one less thing to watch out for.

It's all well and good, however, read both the second paragraph of HC219, and the Ambulance Service advice again.

Quote:

Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb.

Quote:

"If there is no safe place for you to pull into, rather than immediately stopping, it is better to continue as you were at a safe speed until there is a safe place to pull in or until the ambulance vehicle can safely overtake. Please avoid pulling into bus lanes or cycle lanes."

In other words, don't swing in and brake sharp, look to see the lane is empty, including behind you before moving in to a bike/bus lane to let them pass.

The Taxi driver swung in and hit the brakes fairly hard. If there is an obstruction or pinch point ahead, then he should have stayed in lane until after the obstruction. If not, he should have slowed down more gently in order to give the cyclist enough time to take a tea break before having to react.

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

The Taxi driver swung in and hit the brakes fairly hard. If there is an obstruction or pinch point ahead, then he should have stayed in lane until after the obstruction. If not, he should have slowed down more gently in order to give the cyclist enough time to take a tea break before having to react.

They really didn't either swing or hit the brakes hard, they were already going slowly and clearly indicated while the cyclist was a good distance away, moving across smoothly and very slowly into the cycle lane; in any case the cyclist should have been anticipating that the taxi was going to have to move. This tea break they should've left the cyclist enough time to have, are we talking just a cuppa or are we throwing in biscuits and sandwiches?

"Could you refresh the pot?"

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

In other words, don't swing in and brake sharp, look to see the lane is empty, including behind you before moving in to a bike/bus lane to let them pass.

The Taxi driver swung in and hit the brakes fairly hard. If there is an obstruction or pinch point ahead, then he should have stayed in lane until after the obstruction. If not, he should have slowed down more gently in order to give the cyclist enough time to take a tea break before having to react.

It only looks like he swung in and breaked sharply because of the field of view from the camera and the fact this cyclist decided to try riding at their normal pace, despite knowing a blue-lit vehicle was approaching and there was traffic ahead which would likely pull over to let the fire engine pass. To me this is simple entitlement from the cyclist and does all of us a disservice.

I also suspect he may have carried on riding as he did to garner a video for social media. 

Open to being corrected, but I tend to think most railing bans are based either on (possibly nebulous) terrorist fears outside public buildings, or simply that a bike thief is more likely to chop the railing than a decent lock (which is probably correct) rather than just "BlOoDy cYcLiStS".

Indeed, as far back as 1939 five people were killed in Coventry by an IRA bomb left in the basket of a chained up bicycle and I suspect that certainly increased the number of such bans. Hardly logical though when you consider the amount of explosive that can be packed into the boot of a car, very few areas I can think of where car parking is banned outside buildings for fear of terrorism.

The 7.5t truck packed with fertiliser did considerably more damage to Manchester than the bicycle in Coventry, and that's exactly the type of vehicle I'd expect to be used to clear up that dumped building waste.