Our video of poor driving today isn’t so much a near miss – the lorry driver involved gave the cyclist plenty of room by going through a pedestrian crossing on the wrong side of the road in a classic ‘Must Get In Front’ (MGIF) manoeuvre.
Neil, the road.cc reader who sent in the clip, told us that the overtake was “Completely unneeded as his depot is 500 metres around the corner!
“It was reported to West Lancs police and the last I heard they had approached the company for the name of the driver.
“I was doing 20mph in the temporary 20mph zone,” he continued.
“I posted on the company’s Facebook page and got no response in a month. Then I got a note from the developer who said he had created the page but doesn’t think the company looks at it.
“So the report was sent to the police. I would have been happy with a ‘sorry’ from the company, but it wasn’t to be … ”
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
66 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 702: Must Get In Front lorry driver goes wrong way round pedestrian island”
In all fairness to firwoods,
In all fairness to firwoods, who I can vouch for having been a satisfied former customer, I wouldn’t have apologised either.
No way the cyclist was doing 20mph, and also decided (for reasons only in their own head) not to use the freshly laid and perfectly serviceable cycle path, instead deciding brazenly to hold up hard working people earning a living.
Garage at Large wrote:
You are such an r-sole!
The cyclist doesn’t have to use a cycle path as you well know (even though there is a short cycle lane marked on the road as the truck passes). The truck driver does have to obey the rules of the road, which include passing pedestrian islands on the right side. And he was about to turn left anyway?! Bigger r-sole than you!
As always, the better action
As always, the better action is to ignore boo’s obvious trolling posts of defending road crime, victim blaming cyclists and vile accusations aimed at cycling Mikey and other posters. Then maybe Road.cc will take appropriate actions when they realise he isn’t generating page visits and ‘interactions'”. Or until he falls back into the full racist or open vileness and is kicked off for that (I think the accepted term is asking for his own account to be removed when for racist reasons).
Jem PT wrote:
Legally, you are correct: the cyclist doesn’t have to use the cycling path (although of course the recommendation is to do so when cycling at less than 18mph).
However, this isn’t just a legal question, it’s an ethical and moral one, extending into attitudinal variations between some cyclists and society at large. These attitudes distil down into a basic premise: are you courteous to your fellow man or not?
I’d argue that by riding in the manner displayed in the video, the cyclist hasn’t displayed values of respect and decency.
Of course you’re free to disagree, as is your right, but please try to extend the same politeness to me as I give to you – thank you!
Garage at Large]
Please stop repeating this lie.
Is that polite enough for you?
I’m not sure which part of my
I’m not sure which part of my statement you’re referring to as a lie, but as odd as it seems, cyclists do not – I repeat do NOT – legally have to use a cycling path where one is provided.
The second part. There is no
The second part. There is no such recommendation. As was pointed out several times when you posted that disinformation before.
Garage at Large wrote:
… and, for the avoidance of doubt, a cycling path is not – I repeat NOT – provided here, so your tilt at the cyclist is based on a red herring.
Garage at Large wrote:
what about the part where you claim the space beside the cyclist is a cycle lane, when it is clear it starts here, and the cyclist has not yet reached it?
Garage at Large]
You are not a polite person. You behave in a rude, condescending and antisocial manner every day you post here. You clearly revel in your constant attempts to aggravate this entire community, and genuine respect is a concept I doubt you can even recognise.
As evidenced above where you are simply lying about the events that are plain to see on video. Just so you can unfairly denigrate a cyclist who has done nothing wrong. Just because you hope it will make other cyclists reading it have a slightly worse day than they otherwise would. And you talk about being polite?
Garage at Large wrote:
The cyclist doesn’t have to use a cycle path as you well know (even though there is a short cycle lane marked on the road as the truck passes).— Garage at Large Legally, you are correct: the cyclist doesn’t have to use the cycling path (although of course the recommendation is to do so when cycling at less than 18mph). However, this isn’t just a legal question, it’s an ethical and moral one, extending into attitudinal variations between some cyclists and society at large. These attitudes distil down into a basic premise: are you courteous to your fellow man or not? I’d argue that by riding in the manner displayed in the video, the cyclist hasn’t displayed values of respect and decency. Of course you’re free to disagree, as is your right, but please try to extend the same politeness to me as I give to you – thank you!— Jem PT
what cycle lane? I don’t know about Herts, but round here it is customery for cycle lanes to be clearly identified. So it seems that in your desire to defend any driver of any wrongdoing, you have decided this must be a cycle lane. except it obviously isn’t.
Jem PT wrote:
The lorry did pass the traffic island on the right side, but yet still managing to be on the illegal side! (Sorry, I will get my coat)
Disappointing effort there
Disappointing effort there GaL. I’m sure you can come up with a better wind-up if you try just a little harder.
Garage at Large wrote:
Except that is not a cycle path, it’s a pavement. Cyclists are not supposed to use the pavement, which is generally reserved for parking cars. The cycle path begins at the shared use sign where the kerb drops to admit cyclists, and ends just around the bend towards the end of the video.
The entry point for cyclists to the shared use path has been expertly positioned just where pedestrians will stand with pushchairs waiting to cross at the island, and just too late for any cyclists wishing to avoid being squeezed out by lorries at the pinch point. But that’s besides the point here.
And just a shared pathway too
And just a shared pathway too of pointless length.
What is it supposed to achieve ?
Add massively to congestion
Add massively to congestion and pollution…
hirsute wrote:
The council can tick the cycle provision box and get the money.
Garage at Large wrote:
It seems that almost every part of this post is either a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Still though, of course you wouldn’t have apologised since you’re a genuinely nasty person who thrives on attempting to create discord and anger.
Garage at Large wrote:
You, preaching ethics and morals – whatever next…?
Facts, evidence, truthfulness
Facts, evidence, truthfulness?
Interesting concept that a
Interesting concept that a cyclist can’t be a “hard-working person earning a living”. What world do you live on?
* I added the hyphen for you this time, but in future you need to work harder on your spelling and grammar.
You forget. Nigel is a
You forget. Nigel is a leisure cyclist. He only heads out on quiet roads during quiet times of the week in order to enjoy the fruits of his labour and ensures that nobody is inconvenienced by his actions. Remember anyone who cycles beyond the pursuit of leisure is an anathema to him.
Garage at Large wrote:
.
.
.
Garage at Large wrote:
I was going to let this slide and be the bigger man. But I can’t. You’ve really offended me and probably many others on the list forum. I work hard. I work bloody hard. I work long and unsocial hours. I work with some very unpleasant and self entitled individuals (not colleagues I should add) I choose to cycle as my contribution to the environment. I cycle for my health and well being. I cycle because I enjoy it and because some days I can get from A to B much quicker than by driving. I do own a car. It gets used for long journeys or when I have no other means to move stuff. I will use infra but only when it is joined up and doesn’t put me in danger. Every time I go out on my bike I will cycle defensively to protect myself but I will always make a point of moving to the side once it is safe to do so. I use lights. I wear visible clothing. Yet. With all this ‘moral and ethical’ decision making, my life is constantly compromised (and actually has been)by many selfish and entitled motorists. I end up having to negotiate long tail backs of cars who are ‘brazenly holding up hard working people’ like myself due to there being no infrastructure available to ensure I can get from A to B safely.
I’m sorry you’ve been
I’m sorry you’ve been offended by what I wrote, but I really didn’t mean it in the way you’ve chosen to interpret it. I can’t tell if it’s confected internet outrage or genuine upset, but on the off-chance that it’s the latter let me explain what I’ve written:
– There is no doubt that the firwoods driver is working. I’m assuming he works hard for his living.
– I don’t know if the cyclist in the clip is working or not. What I do know is that by choosing to ride in the manner displayed in the video, by ignoring the cycling infrastructure, he has deliberately held up the firwoods driver.
– Just because I think the firwoods driver is hard working, it doesn’t mean that either you, other cyclists, or indeed the cyclist in the video are not hard working.
I hope this sets the record straight and puts your mind at ease. Not everyone can ride a bike as part of their day to day job, and I hope you understand that someone delivering and distributing heavy materials as part of their job cannot feasibly ride a cargo bike.
Garage at Large wrote:
You’re going to have to help me here Garage; what cycling infrastructure? There is none. That thing on the left, the other side of the raised kerb, that’s a footpath or pavement.
Garage at Large wrote:
The non-use of cycling infrastructure is irrelevant here since the Firwoods driver had overtaken the cyclist by the time the cyclist reached the dropped kerb that appears to signal the start of the mixed use path.
Also, having just watched again, it appears that the sign at the end of the mixed path requires one to stop and wait for a space in traffic. If the infrastructure is not convenient to use, don’t be surprised when folk don’t use it.
You know. You just needed to
You know. You just needed to stop after the first line. There was no need to justify yourself beyond that.
The infra commences at the pedestrian refuge. The cyclist hadn’t even reached this point when the overtake was committed to. So could in no way have delayed the driver. If a 2 second can be called a delay. And as the HC advises (pre update) don’t overtake a cyclist when approaching a roundabout/traffic calming measure/left turn. It also advises that you don’t pass the right hand side of a refuge solely because a pedestrian crossing will only be looking in the direction they expect traffic to come from and there’s no guarantee that the driver will have clocked their presence.
Also if you check GM you will find the infra only exists for a short distance either side of the junction and looks as if it is there to aid cyclists negotiate said junction by forcing a rather convoluted manner regardless of the direction approached. (Something like turn left to turn right)
I actually don’t give a rip if somebody can’t ride a bike whether it’s a cargo bike, trike or whatever All I ask is that they don’t put my life at risk.
A word of advice. I did childrens and youth work for a good many years and we taught and encouraged that when saying sorry, not to use the word ‘but’ as that negated the apology. Maybe something you could take onboard.
I will accept your apology though.
Garage at Large wrote:
You really did. Since everything you’ve said about the cyclist’s behaviour is a lie, you are only saying what you are saying because you want to offend people. You’re nothing but a yob behind a keyboard with no sense of common decency.
Garage at Large wrote:
Interpretation isn’t necessary – your bigoted, ignorant bullshit comes through loud and clear every time, little man.
Garage at Large wrote:
the cycle lane that doesn’t even start until the HGV is already committed to passing on the wrong side of the island?
note before 8s, there is only grass to the left of the road, at 8s, there is a ramp with tactile surfacing leading onto the pavement but no blue sign. Quite why the authorities are enticing partially sighted people to cross a driveway with no pavement on the far side is a mystery.
At 14s there is an on road cycle lane filtering onto the shared pavement, but look where is the firwood vehicle? already on the wrong side of the island.
I once got stopped by a
I once got stopped by a copper on a motorcycle for cycling round the wrong side of an island to get past a line of stationary cars in in Hyde Park. He gave me a right lecture. I presume he must have done likewise in order to catch up. I don’t recall whether I said “It’s a fair cop”.
Can someone remind me – going
Can someone remind me – going the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge is definitely against the HC, isn’t it?
And not using a cycle path is definitely not against the HC?
Depends if you ask DM
Depends if you ask DM supporting twats. Or road lawyers trying to angle for business.
Unfortunately I suspect the cops can’t do anything if the OP didn’t tell them for a month.
I think even they would
I think even they would struggle to deny that cyclists do not have to use cycle paths which are not there.
Sriracha wrote:
If a tree fell onto an imaginary cycle path, would the council ever get round to clearing it?
hawkinspeter wrote:
If a tree fell onto an imaginary cycle path, would the council ever get round to clearing it?— Sriracha
depends
if the imaginary cycle path was aligned witht he acutal road, they would likely be there in a day
On the pavement, perhaps not.
Although this may be harsh, bucks CC has a portal for reporting blocked rights of way, and it seems response can be pretty quick, even when concerning brideways, whewre the responsibility rests with the landowner.
I suppose you could always
I suppose you could always show them the thumbnail for the video above as a still image. Then ask “Is the driver passed the cyclist and performing an illegal road manouvre before or after the shared path starts?”
Yep, no NIP within 14 days,
Yep, no NIP within 14 days, no prosecution.
The police were informed 4
The police were informed 4 days after the incident. They contacted the company for the drivers details well before 14 days.
Badly written, sorry. I sent
Badly written, sorry. I sent the note to the company and got no response in 3 days so sent the video to the police. They asked the company for the drivers details well before 14 days. I was then contacted by the web developer a month after the incident telling me the company don’t seem to look at their web page.
I was watching a dash cam
I was watching a dash cam compliation (wish I had noted which one !) where driver A over took driver B in a 30 and went the wrong side of the island.
Driver A then almost hit the cyclist who was using the painted cycle lane. They either failed to observe them or just didn’t give a shit.
Either way I do find it concerning when drivers do this overtake as it is not risk free.
Looks like Burscough
Looks like Burscough industrial estate…….Dolan is around the next left.
As it happens I was on a
As it happens I was on a Dolan GXT at the time…..
One would hope it wouldn’t
One would hope it wouldn’t happen, but it’s possible some nasty mean-minded agenda-driven silly little man might claim the cyclist was lying about doing 20mph: having a quick look at Google Maps, the distance from the edge of the entrance on the left to the traffic island is 64 metres and the cyclist covers it in seven seconds, or 9.14m a second. 9.14×60 = 548m/minute x 60 = 32,800 m/h = 32.8 km/h = 20.4 mp/h. So hopefully nobody will be stupid enough to try any nonsense about that.
I don’t see why you had to do
I don’t see why you had to do that for Ren as most road cyclists who hit 20mph could see the cyclist was doing very close to that speed at the time.
However I’m sure mean spirited person if they exist, would be the ones who defend a lorry blatantly breaking standard road laws put in place to protect pedestrians (and not arbituary ones like close passing) by stating it is a cyclists fault for not being on a cycle path that didn’t actually exist at the point the lorry broke standard road laws.
Still I suspect anyone like that would be the same type of person who would be a lying, racist, mysoginist anti-vaxxer who then tries to claim moral and ethics on their side one day, after insinuating vile things about other people on others previously.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You need to remember that they view their opinion as fact….. you have used pesky evidence to prove that yet again he is making things up which are so easily disproved.
And because they knew legally the cyclist did no wrong they had to try and say it was morally bad for the cyclist to be on the road…… because cycle lane…… but with the fact that you have been able to prove that the cyclist was travelling at the speed limit even his ethical and moral arguments are moot.
*edit*
I’d expect an expert in statistics to have had the common decency to carry out the basic mathematics to confirm his opinion before he made such grandiose alternative facts claims
.
.
Nice bit of research there!
Nice bit of research there! You’ve earned a thumbs up!
Obviously 20mph limit and
Obviously 20mph limit and wrong side of the island issues but I’m not sure I’d be very distressed about this. Good visibility, forward observation and safe overtake from the point of view of the cyclist.
If I see blatant disregard of
If I see blatant disregard of road safety laws, I will report them whether I felt in danger or not. This is on the assumption they either know no rules of the road so will break any of them through ignorance, or more probably they do know them and will break them regardless for their own benefit.
If that is close to the depot, and Streetview shows not much change to the road betwen march 2021 and now, I actually suspect the cyclist was incidental and said driver regularly does this manouvre so they can go around the corner faster without needing to slow down.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Would it be OK for cyclists to ride on the pavement or jump red lights then, provided that on their assessment there was no risk? Or is the law the law and not some arbitrary guideline that can be broken with impunity at the discretion of the individual?
The last time that I was
The last time that I was passed by a speeding motorist going around the wrong side of a so called pedestrian refuge it was a terrifying incident, on a road with many of them, part of my evening commute. All I was aware of was the screaming engine of rapid acceleration, I believed they would drive straight through me.
What is it about “traffic calming”?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Certainly I value my life above the other guy’s licence. I’d far rather be a witness to this scenario than a victim of the alternative. However it is still worth reporting since driven with that attitude things will play out differently next time.
Nigel should, of course only
Nigel should, of course only post comments on Tuesdays.
Then we can all thank him for his comments and say to him, “See you next Tuesday”.
Unfortunately, it means he
Unfortunately, it means he will still post bullshit and bile and try to dress it up as niceness at least once a week. And the mods will still do nothing about it.
whoosh
whoosh
I know Cu Next Tuesday thank
I know Cu Next Tuesday thank you very much. Just pointing out him not posting at all would be ideal.
what an excellent cycle lane,
what an excellent cycle lane, to avoid 10s of cycling on the road, the cyclist must now slow down in a pinch point and risk of collision with vehicles coming from behind, have a potential conflict with any pedestrian waiting to cross the road, and then come to a dead stop to emerge back onto the road, before needing to get back up to speed with Firwood HGVs thundering round that bend at max speed by increasing the turn radius courtesy of driving the wrong side of the island.
I wouldn’t use the cycle lane either, cwrtainly not more than once.
wycombewheeler wrote:
The fact that the resident troll cannot grasp that :-
Quite simply it lives in a world where the actual facts are completely irrelevant and its opinion is all that matters. It is displaying narcissistic tendancies by deliberately posting controversial posts so that people give it the attention it craves.
We should all as a concerted effort simply ignore all of it’s inflammmatory posts until it goes away.
In this post I was talking
In this post I was talking about the actual cycle lane that has been installed here, and not claims of additional imaginary cycle path that other posters may have refered to.
It is of course unrealted to the incident, but is so shockingly pointless, I thought it merited comment.
Why are posters wasting time
Why are posters wasting time responding to a proven liar whose desire is to cause maximum disruption?
hirsute wrote:
I couldn’t agree more
Agree – why bother replying
Agree – why bother replying to the village idiot? It likes it when you do – so deny it the cheap pleasure.
That cycle lane smacks of a
That cycle lane smacks of a local authority obtaining central government funding, spending the absolute minimum and pocketing the remainder. I wonder how many £1000s that cost for £5 of paint. An example of why local authorities need to be more accountable to central government.