When one London-based cyclist caught a close pass on camera and sent the footage to the company whose branding was covering the driver responsible’s vehicle, he expected an apology and perhaps “some form of disciplinary action”. Instead, he was threatened with legal action for using the company’s trademark without permission.
The road.cc reader who told us about the incident initially uploaded the video to their YouTube channel (Chapona Bicyclette) and forwarded a copy to Cornices Centre, the company whose van driver close passed him on Chelsea Embankment in November.
But, rather than an apology and “some form of disciplinary action against their driver”, the road.cc reader instead received a lengthy email from a company director claiming that “unauthorised use” of their ‘CORNICES CENTRE®’ trademark was “confusing our customers, negatively impacting our brand reputation, and potentially harming our sales and the exclusivity of our trademark”, something the company wanted addressed with prompt removal of its name from the “video content and descriptions”.
If unaddressed or refused, the email seen by road.cc continued, the company said it would be “prepared to take legal action if necessary” and would “seek legal redress and claim any related expenses, including lost sales”.
> Here’s what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision on camera while cycling
It also argued company advertisement on vehicles does “not imply our responsibility for incidents involving those mediums” and accused the road.cc reader of damaging their “reputation by misleading the public in your videos by focusing on our company rather than the drivers featured”.
“The company could have quite easily apologised and confirmed some form of disciplinary action against their driver,” the road.cc reader explained. “But instead decided to threaten me with legal action for using their trademark without permission.
“This gives me the impression that they didn’t think their driver did anything wrong. Despite the video showing the van passing me within easy reach. Whilst they were concerned about brand damage of a YouTube video with 400 views at the time, it’s now had 40,000 views in the past 24 hours, since word of the ‘trademark infringement’ got out. One might allege this has backfired.
“I’m considering legal action against Cornices Centre now, with proceeds going to a cycling charity. I don’t want their money, but I would like an apology, both for the diabolical driving and their unfounded legal threats.
“I’ve also spoken to other regular YouTubers about this, where they’ve also been threatened with legal action from various brand owners. Many took down their videos entirely, thinking they were in the wrong, and they were genuinely fearful of these unfounded legal threats.”
road.cc contacted Cornices Centre for comment but did not receive a reply.
The footage and subsequent email from the company has also been the subject of a video by barrister Daniel ShenSmith on his BlackBeltBarrister YouTube channel, in which he suggests, while stressing the video is not legal advice and for educational purposes only, that “infringing use is when you are using someone else’s trademark to market goods or services” and highlights Section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 which defines infringement.
“The point is, it must be used in the course of business to market goods or services,” BlackBeltBarrister continued. “Unless Chapona Bicyclette is somehow marketing goods or services using this company’s name, then he is not going to be infringing the trademark by the definition in the Trade Marks Act.”
The barrister also points out to his viewers, 42,000 of whom have watched the video since its upload on 1 January, that the email from the Cornices Centre director explains that “the company is the owner of a registered trademark” and “whilst they are quite correct to say that the YouTube video does incorporate the trademark in video titles and descriptions, they say it is improperly used, which is not really the case because he’s not, in so far as I can see, marketing any goods or services”.
100 thoughts on “Cyclist threatened with legal action for posting video of close pass by driver in company-branded van”
Black Belt Barrister – For
Black Belt Barrister – For Once, a Social Media Lawyer on the side of cyclists, and common sense.
From barrack room lawyer to
From barrack room lawyer to black belt barrister
Not “for once”. There are
Not “for once”. There are lots of us out there, doing a lot of work for cyclists.
This is a good demonstration
This is a good demonstration of the Streisland Effect
the little onion wrote:
This is a good demonstration of the Mandela Effect.
Whats more, even if he was
Whats more, even if he was marketing goods or services, they would need to be similar to those for which CORNICE has registered the mark (primarily construction related with some accountancy). Nothing in there even vaguely related to digital media content.
Also – how thick are his customers if they are confused by thinking a cycling YouTube channel is his business?
It’s the “lets pick a random
It’s the “lets pick a random arbitrary rule to get him to take down his video” approach.
I think they were just hoping he would take it down without a fight becasue it makes them look bad, but content creators on YT in any genre are all facing threats to their content (and therefore their income) are standing up for themselves, because they have to.
If they had any basis for a copyright or trademark infringement they could have submitted a copyright strike on the video in an attempt to force it to be taken down, but they didn’t. They know they don’t have a case to claim.
Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:
AFAIK YouTube only has policies for copyright infringement (and those are very much in favour of the copyright holders).
The copyright policy is
The copyright policy is heavily flawed, and there are thousands of AI generated spam channels generating thousands of dollars in revenue an hour using stolen content re-edited and dubbed over using AI voice and open source music files. Many use the same tricks to work around the rules and still make a lot of money. Science YouTuber Kyle Hill has recently investigated the problem and its scale is huge. Those channels pump out a ten-minute clickbait viral video every few minutes. They open their channel description with “fair use policy” claims yet are built to commercially rely on ad revenue. And people watch them in their millions.
Also the wording of YT policies blur the lines between what constitutes as Copyright and Trademarks as intellectual property, as in some clauses they are both descriptively banded together as one and the same despite not officially being combined as such.
I know that stretch well. Not
I know that stretch well. Not only was the overtake unsafe, it was also completely pointless. Anyone who drives or cycles along there from time to time would know that the driver would get held up behind a queue of vehicles at the next set of lights and that the cyclsit would filter to the front. It highlights to me why all drivers, and I mean all drivers, should have to undertake compulsory cycle training.
There are many times when I’ll happily trundle along behind a cyclist at 15mph in a 20mph zone when I’m in my car these days as I know I’ll come behind a crocodile of other cars at the next set of lights. I use the South Circular here in South London regularly for example and if you’re driving along it, there’s really no need to overtake a cyclist.
Oh, and the legal claim by the firm is stupid and self-defeating.
Have they removed the ‘no
Have they removed the ‘no overtaking cyclists’ signs now?
Do you mean this sign
Good spot! You must mean this sign (circled) in the video. It’s easier to read what it says in Google Maps. I guess it still says the same today.
Baroudeur wrote:
They are still there, it’s the lead-in to the “Super Sewer” works (more properly known as the Thames Tideway Tunnel) which takes out virtually all of the westbound carriageway. Last time I looked they were scheduled to be completed in 2025.
I thought they had been but
I thought they had been but as the other post shows, they hadn’t.
And BBB points out that
And BBB points out that making unfounded threats can lead to being counter sued under section 21C of the trade mark act.
What’s bizarre is BBB has 372000 subscribers whereas Chapona Bicyclette has 417 !!
How to trash your own reputation by ensuring as wide an audience as possible !
Make that 418. I have
Make that 418. I have subscribed in support of Chap. That video has definitely grew his presence after BBB’s involvement.
(Repeating what I said on the
(Repeating what I said on the Live blog about this)
I’d like to see the cyclist get an injunction against them just so that the business will pick up the thousands of pounds of legal fees. This kind of weaponised stupidity needs to be punished.
Also, am I the only one who keeps reading “Chapona” as some kind of spanish name with a soft “ch”? (It appears that it’s a woman’s morning dress)
Sorry, I’m being pedantic
Sorry, I’m being pedantic about lanuage misunderstandings here.
By “them” presumably You mean the business, rather than the cyclist…?
mitsky wrote:
Yes, the cyclist should get an injunction against the business to stop them making unjustified threats of legal action.
(No subject)
I saw this on FB first, my
I saw this on FB first, my comment there was along the lines of “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. I think we should have a right old pile on, especially aimed at the Director concerned. What a complete and utter piece of shit.
Not sure if its been
Not sure if its been mentioned yet…
But given most cyclists with an open road (yes, even in central London) can easily push or exceed 20mph… was the driver speeding?
At 30 seconds in you can see
At 30 seconds in you can see a ’20 mph slow down’ LED sign flashing, so somebody triggered it! Most likely the van. I estimated their speed to be around 24mph.
From the end of Embankment
From the end of Embankment Gardens to the traffic lights is (Google Maps measurement) 119m and the rider covers it in 13 seconds, just about 9m/s or pretty much dead on 20mph, and includes some slowing as the driver overtakes, so the driver would definitely be exceeding the speed limit. No surprise, it’s a nice straight run off the bridge footing if you’re lucky with the lights and there’s usually a tail wind so I often ride down there at 23-25mph with a steady stream of cars overtaking me. Very rare to see drivers adhering to the 20 limit down there except through the speed camera just before Albert Bridge.
I was thinking the other day
I was thinking the other day about how utterly redundant the term “Kafkaesque” has become. A world that is senseless, disorienting, and characterized by menacing complexity isn’t remakable anymore. It just describes an ordinary Wednesday.
There were a few comments
There were a few comments about how the cyclist should have moved back left and was asking for trouble or looking for clicks.
I did check this again and he just held a line to where it narrowed which wasn’t very far ahead, so what he did seemed reasonable.
The 20 sign does light up as the van approaches it and the cyclist is only a few seconds behind.
Also, as BBB pointed out, the
Also, as BBB pointed out, the entry or start to the (badly labelled) cycle lane was after a white diagonal lined box – which is a notice for all road users not to be entered unles safe and necessary, so the cyclist took up an appropriate position and stayed there.
I would also point out that the lane dividing line is extremely thin from the camera angle, so it makes the very short lane look line a parking space/ loading bay. And many parking spaces that encroach the road space will use the exact same diagonal lined box to direct and warn traffic.
Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:
WTF is that lane thingy? Whilst the Van drive obviously punishment passed for the cyclist not using, Im 99% sure its not a cycle lane.
I am only going off what was
I am only going off what was said by BBB in his reaction video. I am about 120 miles away and have never seen this stretch of road. Google Maps street view from Oct 2022 shows construction barriers over the section of infrastructure so it is not easy to identify. These barriers can bee seen in all previous street view dates from 2019 onwards.
The only thing is that the line is solid – parking/loading bays, taxi ranks etc are all broken lines so they are not that type of infra, the only times a solid white line is used to the left of a lane is for either a permanent cycle or bus lane (there are no bus lane signs, and the line is always considerably wider), or to determine the boundary line of the road.
On further inspection, further up the road there is still significant construction areas where the road is significantly narrower than originally built. They are probably more likely defining the road boundary as the line position instead of the pavement.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4848791,-0.1551337,3a,75y,65.44h,72.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6gULI3hlswmnlBB_VstMKQ!2e0!5s20221001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
It really shouldn’t matter
It really shouldn’t matter though. Riding close to or far away from the kerb doesn’t change what a driver behind you should be doing. It is recommended to ride further out to discourage overtaking when there isn’t room, but no drivers should be overtaking just because they can squeeze through.
A close overtake when a cyclist is to the far left is 100% the fault of the driver.
That wasn’t the point of my
That wasn’t the point of my post. I was considering the criticisms directed at the cyclist.
By definition the purpose of
By definition the purpose of a trademark of to identify a business or goods/services.
Clearly it’s use in the video is too identify the company… Literally the entire purpose that trademarks are protected for…
You, uh, genuinely think that
You, uh, genuinely think that your interpretation of the law here is more accurate than the barrister’s …?
On your interpretation, the company could sue anyone who mentions their name to refer to them (i.e. identifying the company) … which would be plainly bonkers.
Velo-drone wrote:
You’ve misinterpreted what qwerty360 said. The “purpose” of trademarks in general is to allow a business to be associated with a specific brand i.e. everyone can refer to the trademark and people will know which business they are referring to e.g Apple Computers. Infringement of a trademark isn’t just using the trademark – it’s using (i.e. providing goods or services) that trademark to refer to a different business/product than the owner of the trademark and generally the trademark owner will need to defend their ownership of the trademark (e.g. suing the infringer) in order to keep it.
e.g. if Dyson started using “hoover” in their adverts, then they should expect to get a warning letter from Hoover, but if they don’t and are allowed to continue using it, then “Hoover” could lose their trademark and everyone could use it as a generic term to sell vaccuum cleaners. In the meantime, many people use it as a generic term in daily use, but can’t use it to provide goods or services – presumably a house cleaning service can’t advertise that they “hoover” a house if they’re using a different brand.
As BBB details, it’s only trading or providing services under someone else’s trademark that is infringement.
No, I think you missed the
No, I think you missed the point Qwerty360 is making, namely that the company is ‘fighting’ super hard to protect its trademark, when ironically in this situation, their trademark is actually working beautifully to identify their company… they are just not liking what that means for their reputation
Hmmm…
Hmmm…
(with thanks to Baroudeur below).
Here’s hoping the bully
Here’s hoping the bully director gets his/her comeuppance.
Google reviews slamming the
Google reviews slamming the company’s “run over bikers “policy?
have never understood why
have never understood why drivers of liveried vans drive like that, youre literally advertising your company in huge lettering on the side of your van encouraging people to notice who you are.
and potential customers, as that is what we all are, are going to react negatively towards you driving like an idiot, even if we arent the one most directly impacted, so why do they drive like that ?
The driver should be taken to
The driver should be taken to court for careless driving all that road and he still missed him
Your looking for trouble.
Your looking for trouble. Keep far left as practical. Similar to cyclist a head of you. The dickhead drivers put on blindfolds when it comes to a cyclist. With experience you will learn if you do not you will be injured.
You need to get hold of the
You need to get hold of the government and get ’em to tweak the wording of the Highway Code again. Something like the following maybe?
There’s a happy medium
There’s a happy medium somewhere between the white line and the gutter. I prefer to ride for preservation than to prove a point about rights. Bus lanes have been made available to cycle for donkey’s years because it’s safer than riding in the main lane.
I’ve said it countless times before, what purpose does exercising your rights make if it’s done posthumously. Being squishy it’s better to stay out the way of the non squishy stuff. But hey, you carry on everybody your rights because it leaves me plenty of room to ride safely. Let Jeremy Vine take all the risks.
Jaarn wrote:
You do know that solid white line in the video isn’t a cycle or bus lane, right (there are no buses on that part of Chelsea Embankment)? That it marks a temporary taxi rank for the Chelsea Flower Show that no road user, including cyclists, should be using? That any cyclist using it (wrongly) for protection will soon find it running out and themselves badly squeezed as they approach the sewage works that cut into the road from the left just ahead? Just checking you weren’t talking bollocks from a position of total ignorance of the road conditions.
Jaarn wrote:
Which line?
Is it? Some existing “fast and brave” cycling types prefer them (because often empty). As far as I can see they add extra hazards (buses, often the worst road surface, cars cutting in when bus lane ends) in addition to a standard lane. They’re not even free from cars – because taxis and because many wink out of existence for some periods of the day / year. Many don’t even keep you out of the car lane(s) anyway as unless you’re happy to sit behind a bus while people board you’ll have to pull out round it.
There’s a reason the Dutch avoid doing this – they put road users of very different masses and speed behaviour in the same space. See “sustainable safety – homogeneity” and there’s a good article examining bike / bus sharing from a UK perspective.
I’d guess many here have managed to stand up for their rights in a happy medium somewhere between getting off their cycle and throwing themselves under buses (or other motor vehicles). I’m not aware of any Gandhian cycling lobby but happy to be educated.
Of course – there are some who’ve posted that they’ve just given up cycling (on roads, or at all IIRC for a few). And then on the other side there are (notable, because rare) edge cases like Mr. Vine, as you note.
Awful shit bollocks?
Awful shit bollocks?
That’s already been covered.
That’s already been covered.
As has the pointlessness of mgif.
I’m sure the cyclist has plenty of experience.
Ashb wrote:
This poster is surely not a cyclist as what they wrote is complete bollocks. Doing it would put anyone cycling in more danger than if they rode further out in the road.
Ashb wrote:
I cycle and drive and find poor driving and cycling is roughly similar in number, More so in Urban areas.
We need to start respecting each other a bit more and using common sense.
Drivers need to realise some highway nearest the pavement can be in poor condition so cycling is futher into the highway. Giving more space on roundabouts and time.
Cyclists need to remember to stop at red lights, learn to indicate clearly,Especially when turning left.
Its about mutual respect and common sense refering to people as d***heads on either side says it all.
Cyclists need to remember to
Cyclists need to remember to stop at red lights, learn to indicate clearly,Especially when turning left.
Why are all the comments in this thread copied and pasted badly from Twitter? For example, random missing spaces and capitalised words in the wrong place.
For what it’s worth, there’s no obvious reason that a cyclist should need to signal before turning left (not least because it’s not possible to brake and signal at the same time, especially going downhill) and maybe as a driver if you looked up from your phone and didn’t drive six inches from the back wheel it wouldn’t be a problem.
Why are all the comments in
Why are all the comments in this thread copied and pasted badly from Twitter?
Because what’s in their brains is copied and pasted badly from X. ‘All’ is a bit harsh. I’ll worry about castigating cyclists for failing to stop for amber/ red traffic lights, when society and the police decide to take action to stop HGVs and other motor vehicles from doing it, rather than condoning the offence ‘because everybody does it’.
Stephankernow wrote:
There may be some skew because (on-road) cyclists are a small minority of the population (and actually – drivers are a particular sub-set as well e.g. doesn’t include children, some with disabilities, the very poor etc.) However overall people behave like people so this is what you’d expect, no?
All good!
Bingo! However – yes, it would be great (for them) if people cycling were more careful. Although from reports it seems that’s not why cyclists are getting killed. And even if we were all good cyclists we wouldn’t get more respect – mostly because we’re in the way and / or seen as the “other” / out group (lots of information on this e.g. [1] [2] [3]).
P.S. why is signalling turning left more important than, say, when turning right? Do people drive differently in down there in Kernow – or is it something to do with the hedgebanks?
If you find yourself calling for “respect” and “common sense” that is often a sign there’s a system problem. As noted above- in the absense of special training, monitoring, very strong legal or social pressure – people are people. (I think even most professional drivers aren’t scrutinised like airline pilots or even train drivers). Philosophies and religions have been exhorting people to be “better” since history began – I’m not sure that’s shifted the average much?
I think you can change attitudes a little, but that requires a new kind of virtuous circle which works *with* our human quirks.
You need to read TfL’s
You need to read TfL’s ‘advice to cyclists’ which specifically mentions ‘taking the lane’ exactly as this rider was doing.
this should be an interesting
this should be an interesting case. And one for the bullies to keep an eye on so they can learn how not to get their arses kicked. Let’s see how many laymen can start to understand branding now.
I would say “see you in court
I would say “see you in court!” .
How is it an infringement of their name? There are many thousands of dash-cams around in cars these days, and CCTV cameras everywhere, so would the company be so aggressive if their van was picked-up by one of them and posted onto the internet for doing something stupid?
Their driver is representing the company when he is driving their van, so I would suggest that it is him they should be annoyed at.
It’s bollocks of course, but
It’s bollocks of course, but they are worried that they will lose money, so go down some daft route in an attempt to bully into silence.
As BBB shows, this could backfire badly.
It’s clearly their (Cornices
It’s clearly their (Cornices Centre’s) own fault – I mean, advertising on their vehicles <tut-tut>.
I’m sure Cornices Centre
I’m sure Cornices Centre would appreciate some loving feedback on their driver’s lack of awareness.
https://www.cornicescentre.co.uk/coving-centre/
I’ve now left a one star
I’ve now left a one star rating and assorted commentary on Google
Do remember what Black Belt
Do remember what Black Belt Barrister said about doing that, if you aren’t a genuine customer though.
stonojnr wrote:
Please remind me, it’s not in the article apparently.
I’m not commenting on any of their services, so I’m not posing as an actual customer.
P.S.: Comment seems to have been removed…
Whilst the safety of
Whilst the safety of vulnerable road users should be paramount in the minds of drivers of motor vehicles, along with the owners of the companies involved…
we know, based on this case and many others, that this isn’t always the case.
Having said that, business owners who use vehicles as part of their operations should be mindfull of the waste of fuel that driving like this will lead to.
Which in turn leads to higher costs for the companies.
I’d have thought that driving sensibly (ie for fuel efficiency) would be a priority.
Given vehicles have been able to display fuel consumption rates for decades, this information should be more widely used.
Companies could even train and incentivise their employees to increase their driving efficiency to save costs.
If Strava has shown anything, humans can be immensley proud of their own stats.
Not to mention brake wear,
Not to mention brake wear, tyre wear and road wear.
Yep. I forgot to mention that
Yep. I forgot to mention that too.
mitsky wrote:
Not yet. Partly “but but there is no alternative – we have to drive!”, presumably there are some business tax breaks for cost of driving and overall drivers (business or personal) are simply not paying the full costs of driving.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Sorry for not making my point clearer:
I was simply thinking it would be in the businesses’ interest to invest in training their drivers to be more fuel efficient in their driving.
ie not simply accelerate to the speed limit to zoom up to the next queue of traffic/red light, rather than a more gradual increase to a slower top speed but creating a smoother flow of traffic.
I understood – and it should
I understood – and it should be. I just suspect that for those businesses which aren’t primarily about motor transport it’s either not seen as a big money saver and / or not worth costs of training. Thinking back, the jobs I’ve had the companies were at most concerned about employees using vehicles for their own purposes.
It’d be nice if there was more concern about “our employees driving our livery vehicles in anti-social or dangerous ways are a potential major cost to our business, several ways” of course…
Generally I suspect very few people are thinking about “I could save a quid here or there by better driving” because despite complaints even once you have a car fuel costs are not necessarily the main expense.
One company I used to drive
One company I used to drive for had a mpg / weight league.
Whoever got the highest mpg while carrying the heaviest load won … however there was a second prize of best mpg over all.
The prize was kudos … and ultimately keeping your job.
General haulage was immensely competitive, and contract prices could be right down to the bone.
A few weeks of poor driving technique could remove a shed load off the profit margin.
What a ? of a driver and
What a ? of a driver and above all, a total ?stain of a company!
Yeah, get stuffed! Your
Yeah, get stuffed! Your driver is sh&t and your company’s name is now all over social media. Stand up and discipline the driver. And by the way go a head and try to sue the poster of this video….good luck with that.
and accused the road.cc
and accused the road.cc reader of damaging their “reputation by misleading the public in your videos by focusing on our company rather than the drivers featured”.
?
this “lawyer” must have skipped vicarious liability at uni
The threat wasn’t made by a
The threat wasn’t made by a lawyer. A Lawyer on YouTube discussed the claim of legal action and why it is unwarranted, and the cyclist is within their right to post the video.
Pretty sure bluffing people
Pretty sure bluffing people on the law is the first tool a practicing lawyer learns! (The second is probably “but use that with extreme caution around more experienced lawyers and indeed judges…”)
I’m actually in sympathy with
I’m actually in sympathy with the company on this one. The cyclist has absolutely no need to be that far out into the road. He could easily have been further left without being anywhere near the kerb leaving room for other vehicles to safely pass. We are in danger of martyr syndrome and entitlement if we want to defend this.
Except for all of the reasons
Except for all of the reasons its stupid that’s a great argument.
The cyclist was in the only travel lane (the area to the left being a taxi rank, not a travel lane) which was not wide enough to facilitate a safe overtake no matter the rider’s position.
The cyclist was travelling at the 20mph speed limit so there was no need for the overtake no matter where on the road he was positioned. Even if he was riding the same speed on the pavement or a completely separate road, the van driver would still have been breaking the law by passing at the speed he did.
Cycling-g wrote:
As pointed out below by myself and others, the “lane” to the left is a taxi rank and so should not be ridden in, the cyclist is as far left in the only active lane as it’s possible to be (if I was going to be critical I’d say they were too far left and should have asserted their right to take the lane), the driver is wilfully ignoring the “narrow lanes do not overtake cyclists” sign, and driver is overtaking at an illegal speed. So I would suggest your “sympathy” for the company is rather foolishly misplaced.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It is not, there are no markations or signage to suggest that the area within the line to the kerb has any use at all; the line is actually a lane boundary line (albeit supposed to be a temporary one) as the area is usually used for overflow for the construction workers for the ongoing sewer works just a couple of hundred yards further down. (this actually makes the drivers actions worse and further cements the cyclist’s actions as proper) The white box forms part of the lane narrowing and therefore the line defines the permitted region for traffic. There is confusion because the line stops suddenly, and then there is another white box area narrowing the lane, with another line following (this time filled with construction barriers). Previously that section was filled with storage containers and cordoned off with construction barriers.
Looking on Google Maps Street View, all the road markings on the stretch surrounding the works are all over the place. They are decipherable however you need to observe and process all the infrastructure to make sense of it. That might take longer than the time it takes to physically drive through the stretch of road if you are unfamiliar with it.
The rest of your statement, however is accurate. As the line is an active lane boundary, the cyclist’s position is in the correct area, although perhaps further left than ideal. The van driver was wrong to overtake on 2 fronts – both on the signage prohibiting overtaking on that stretch of road, and in regards to speeding.
Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:
It’s both, it’s used mainly for construction vehicles but during the Chelsea Flower Show it becomes a taxi rank. Not sure what date this video is. It certainly is a mess signage wise which makes the cyclist’s decision to stay out of it all the more understandable and sensible.
This has already been
This has already been addressed in the thread several times by multiple posters.
Did you not bother to read what has already been posted ? Or could you simply not address the arguments put forward ?
Cycling-g there are a couple
Cycling-g there are a couple of problems with this point of view. Firstly, there is either sufficient room for an overtake or there isn’t. It doesn’t matter what road position the cyclist is taking. The van is the overtaking vehicle and has a duty of care to ensure there is sufficient room for the overtake, which there wasn’t. Secondly, the cyclist is quite clearly taking primary ahead of the road narrowing to signal to motorists not to overtake. That is very good roadcraft.
I cycle to and from work
I cycle to and from work everyday. Considering the dangers involved, It’s not about being right, it’s about being safe and not putting yourself at risk v cars. Plan for drivers to make mistakes. This specific example shows ample driver perceived room on the left for the cyclist to use, but they stay out in the road until the very last opportunity, clearly trying to block the vehicle behind. Road surface on the left looks fine and the cyclist ahead pulls left earlier. Driver was wrong to overtake, BUT the cyclist baited the driver. You’re highly unlikely to ever get enough room left by a car on these sort of roads, this example isn’t that bad. Its london, if you can’t hack it, take the train!
cyclist247 wrote:
Sure!
Another non-cyclist account, by the look of it. Are they all run by the same individual?
“the cyclist baited the driver” – did they bare their arse? FFS.
The next one that tries this kind bullshit gets a Transit door flung open in their gammony face.
Simon E wrote:
There certainly seems to have been a fine crop of them springing up over the last couple of days, at least half-a-dozen fairly blatant new “as a cyclist myself” trolling accounts have appeared.
cyclist247 wrote:
Today I learned that cycling at the motorised speed limit (20mph) is now considered to be driver baiting.
So, on the one hand you’ve got a driver ignoring the “don’t overtake cyclists” sign, speeding and performing a dangerous close pass on a vulnerable road user for sod all gain. On the other hand, you’ve got a cyclist just getting from A to B and getting accused of “baiting”!
Presumably, you give the “can’t hack it” advice to anyone that’s a victim of violent crime.
FFS
You don’t cycle to and from
You don’t cycle to and from work every day. Has mumsnet kicked you off their forum, is that why you are here?
Worth pointing out, as
Worth pointing out, as cyclist247 might simply be an inexperienced road user, that the cyclist in the video has taken primary prior to the road narrowing, in order to signal to motorists not to overtake at that point, since there is insufficient room to do so. This is good roadcraft on the part of the cyclist.
cyclist247 might simply be an
cyclist247 might simply be an inexperienced road user
Although he recommends himself as a very experienced daily commuting cyclist. He could also be another manifestation of a Multiple Personality Disorder.
The cyclist did not take
The cyclist did not take primary at all, as he was cycling on the line marking, virtually inviting a close pass, rather than preventing one..
brogs, a cyclist putting
brogs, a cyclist putting themselves in the way of the vehicle isn’t good road craft – it’s relying on a good driving to avoid an accident. cycling in london as I said previously, is not a case of right or wrong but cycling as safely as possible. Driving standards will continue be crap and the only outcome cyclists can control is looking after themselves. It’s exactly the same for motorbikes where the same principle applies. I started an account due to the anti-driver bias on this thread. Yes, the driver made a mistake, but the cyclist had a lot of space on the left they chose not to use.
Not only have you made
Not only have you made factual errors
HC 72
1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in
the following situations
You are also victim blaming
And contradictory
“Driving standards will continue be crap”
“anti-driver bias on this thread”
cyclist247 wrote:
Putting yourself in the middle of the lane gives you the best chance to be seen by the driver of the vehicle behind you, if they still drive into you they are probably just a psycopath who is out to kill you wherever you ride!
cyclist247 wrote:
There’s very good reasons for the anti-driver bias in this instance. There’s the issue of the completely unforced bad driving – speeding, overtaking after a specific “don’t overtake cyclists” sign and a close-pass (maybe that’s why the sign was there?) and the driver could have anticipated that the overtake was pointless if they’d looked ahead. To follow up the bad driving, the company then issues an unneccessarily aggressive letter that doesn’t have any sane basis for it – maybe the letter writer and the driver are the same person.
You do realise that the space on the left wasn’t eligible for use by the cyclist as it’s a taxi rank, don’t you?
I cycle to and from work
I cycle to and from work everyday. Yet you blame the cyclist Buy a bike and ride it don’t just write BS
If you ride in London every
If you ride in London every day you might want to read TfL’s advice to cyclists, which advises doing exactly as this cyclist was doing and ‘taking the lane’.
But tbf gr0g is right, the
But tbf gr0g is right, the guy on the bike is on or near the center line between two lanes, they aren’t taking a lane there by positioning.
You shouldn’t have to ride like that to stop drivers passing you, but I don’t think prime has applied here
One assumes this company does
One assumes this company does not allow their trademarked company name to be used in Google reviews either, since a similar “trademark infringement” would also be incurred. The director’s main concern ought to be that he is breaching his responsibility to take all reasonable steps to manage his employees driving risks and do everything reasonably practicable to protect people from harm. You’ve got to love it when some attempted bullying backfires though!!
The company’s only got 3
The company’s only got 3 employees and that would include the director, assuming the director’s drawing pay. (Source: company accounts at Companies House.) Chances are the director was driving.
#barbarastreisand
#barbarastreisand
They are after the BBB now !
They are after the BBB now !
He received a vaguely written threat of action and a demand to take his video down !
https://youtu.be/X4OYe1Bwzh0?si=UR74Mk3xsjiGz69-
Just watching an update from
Just watching an update from BBB after he got sued and last Monday the case was discontinued in full:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWueA8na5Qo