Many of the motorists featured on Near Miss of the Day get away with a slap on the wrist. Today’s one, however, only had to suffer a slap on the side of their car.
That’s because Thames Valley Police decided, rather swifty, to take no action against the driver for this bank holiday close pass – because, they argue, the cyclist “put himself in danger” by “barging his way to the front” of a line of cars and moving into the motorist’s path when there “was plenty of room for him to overtake”.
The incident occurred after the cyclist filtered to the front of a queue of traffic at a set of temporary traffic lights in Wallingford on Bank Holiday Monday.
“I’d just stopped on Wallingford bridge to take a couple of photos and encountered a small queue waiting at temporary lights on the other side,” the reader who sent us the footage, BucksCycleCammer, told road.cc.
“Judging afterwards from the Mini who’d overtaken me whilst stopped, they’d already been there for at least 90 seconds, which may explain some frustration.
“So, I filtered to the front and, after more than another minute, the lights changed,” he continued.
“Since the road narrowed significantly, I moved towards primary which did nothing to deter the driver of the Toyota who passed so closely that I was able to slap the side of his vehicle without extending my arm.”
The cyclist then submitted the footage to Thames Valley Police, who “responded very quickly to tell me they will not take any action because I ‘put myself in danger’ – first by ‘barging my way to the front’, getting really close to the Toyota in the process, and then by moving into his path when there was ‘plenty of room for him to overtake’.”
> Near Miss of the Day 816: Driver surrenders licence after sideswiping cyclist at 50mph
Responding to the police’s decision to take no action, the cyclist pointed out that filtering is legal and “recommended to increase visibility”, while the usual existence of three-way permanent lights at the junction – “due to the narrow carriageway on two approaches” – highlighted that there “isn’t plenty of room” to overtake and justified his decision to ride in primary position.
According to the cyclist, his reply “only aggravated the matter; I was left in no doubt that this wasn’t a discussion, but a lecture.”
He concluded: “Whilst there has been some positive movement from TVP this year, there are certainly still those who retain the old attitudes towards cycling.”
> 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
130 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 818: No action taken as police say cyclist ‘put himself in danger’ by ‘barging to the front and moving into driver’s path’”
Some Idiot wrote:
Following highway code/government cycling advice in both cases. Is there a way to escalate this?
Also, why do Police forces insist on giving the role of reviewing incident footage to officers who are blissfully unaware of what the rules of the road actually are?
At least you get a response
At least you get a response TVP is a black hole for my reports!!
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
You can email them for an update. I have a good percentage with no response as a matter of course, but I always get an update if I ask for one.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
A complaint was submitted yesterday, immediately after the call.
It won’t change this individual outcome though.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
I have had a 50% success rate by writing to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s office asking for a review. In one case (the successful one) they agreed the action (letter) should have been greater (prosecution) but it because they had already sent the letter they could do no more than improve training. The second time there was no change in outcome (phone drivers sent letter rather than prosecuted despite clearly using phones and holding them low to keep them out of sight, demonstrating they knew they were breaking the law).
And I’d have been perfectly
And I’d have been perfectly happy with ‘words of advice’ on this one. I’m all for education.
Institutionally anti cyclist
Institutionally anti cyclist
Which vehicle decided to give
Which vehicle decided to give the “Ashley Neal” treatment? The close passer or the vehicle behind?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
It was the chap behind.
I don’t think that’s fair.
I don’t think that’s fair.
That’s a revenge / whinge toot. Ashley Neal does not get concerned about things which are no longer a concern.
Here’s his latest hoot to remind an I thnk food delivery person on a bike that he is there; very sensible.
https://youtu.be/kdSLUoyRZWo?t=457
If you watch it through the food delivery person needs to watch Ashley’s video on “primary”.
There’s a bit more on twitter
There’s a bit more on twitter about the temporary lights being in the same place as the normal ones.
So not really jumping the queue at roadworks.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BucksCycle/status/1564998334556868609
I’m afraid that was a council
I’m afraid that was a council approved close-pass, did you not see the clearly marked cycle lane??!
…and people wonder why cyclists ride through red lights, might have been the safer option here.
Had to double-check that
Had to double-check that really was a cycle lane. This shockingly bad bit of infrastructure was a bit more visible back in 2008…
Love that they’ve made it
Love that they’ve made it wide enough to fit double yellows in. That’s a smart designer right there.
Wonder how they fit the horses in the “advisory horse lanes” when they first introduced charabancs though?
EDIT: and there’s no way John Bull could have got down that pavement on the left, even before dinner.
HoarseMann wrote:
Honestly, I had no idea until right this second!
But I was thinking exactly the same point about the RLJing.
Poor road design caused this,
Poor road design caused this, and probably many other similar close passes along here. Without knowing the road and judging by the photo alone, this road ideally needs closing to through-traffic as its not wide enough for pedestrians, cyclists and cars. The pavement is far too narrow for safe walking, and pedestrians are now the highest priority. Widen the pavements, allow cycles through and close the road to vehicles, at least throughout most of the day/week.
Not gonna happen.
Not gonna happen. Wallingford has only 2 crossings over the Thames one a couple of miles south of this one through another set of winding streets.
A quick look on Google maps
A quick look on Google maps shows the stretch of road and the river crossing is woefully inadequate for through traffic. No amount of wishful thinking changes that. They’ve already marked it as unsuitable for HGVs – truth is it’s unsuitable for all motor traffic.
I guess the police are not
I guess the police are not bothered about this…
(You [i]can[/i] be fined up to £1000, but you won’t be)
Hilux are more expensive than
Hilux is more expensive than
a bicyclemany bicycles though – poor driver probably had no money left after he had to buy one and put fuel in it. Unfair cost of living war on the hard-pressed working entrepreneur, innit?A few thoughts on this one:
A few thoughts on this one:
1.”barging my way to the front” , barging is to move forcefully or roughly. So that assertion is just BS.
2.”by moving into his path when there was ‘plenty of room for him to overtake’.”
Yes I think there was a swerve. Listening to the audio I suspect this was due to difficulty clipping in to the pedals.
3. It is not upto the veichle in front to facilitate the safe pass of the veichle behind. Obviously you can’t make it unsafe by suddenly speeding up etc.
4. I wouldn’t have reported this one as it was low speed and, given the width of the road, was to be expected. I think it was the difficult clipping in that caused things to be closer than they might otherwise have been. But this is why you leave plenty of room when you pass isn’t it?
Yep, the only barging was
Yep, the only barging was done by the pickup driver, pushing the cyclist out of the way because they think they should ride in the gutter and 1.5m is just advice (not helped by the cycle lane though). It should be safe to overtake before you carry out the manoeuvre, you shouldn’t be relying on other traffic to get out of your way.
Imagine if they ran over a pedestrian on a zebra crossing because they were walking too slowly. Can you imagine the police saying to the victim, well you had plenty of time to cross if you’d walked a bit faster?
I think the “barging” comment
I think the “barging” comment tells you all you need to know about the sympathies of the investigating officer.
I was in two minds about this close pass. On the one hand, another cyclist might have felt there was room enough and moved closer to the kerb. But the point is, in this instance, the cyclist did not.
By saying that the cyclist put himself in danger, the police are saying that if the driver behind disagrees with the cyclist’s road position then it is OK to overrule the cyclist even to the extent of endangering his life. I can’t think of any circumstance where that’s the case.
Perhaps the OP should remind
Perhaps the OP should remind the Thames Valley plod in question about this campaign his force is actually running since the outrage for 2 cyclist deaths 14 miles up the road in Oxford.
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2022-04-11/cyclist-deaths-prompt-new-campaign-to-keep-drivers-at-safe-distance
As ever not condoning the
As ever not condoning the driver, but given the rider is aware of the road, was moving to the front of the queue, in the knowledge that they would then claim the lane specifically to impede following traffic, appropriate behaviour?
It’s hardly defensive riding to put yourself into predictable conflict in that way. If I was naturally at the front of that queue I would have held a strong line, so the pass was wrong, and the implicit condoning of the punishment pass was wrong by the police.
However, I do think the cyclist was riding without due consideration to other road users, just because filtering is legal does not make it appropriate in all circumstances.
IanMSpencer wrote:
What do you mean “aware of the road”? First time I’ve been to Wallingford – this is my view as I started filtering.
But, as a general point, do you think it is safer to have further vehicles join the queue afterwards and then attempt to get through the lights before they change again? Why do we have ASLs?
Watching the part of the vid
Watching the part of the vid where you had the close pass, the very narrow bit is about 80m long and took around 14 seconds.
ISTM that you were smoewhat to the left of centre. Would it have prevented the overtake, do you think, if you had gone absolutely down the middle?
(Accepting that it is difficult for me to judge from the video.)
OK, I got confused by other
OK, I got confused by other posts and gained the impression it was a regular route. Apologies for that.
I still think though that if you don’t know what your exit is, then filtering is not a good idea. It is a view I’ve expressed several times here, that filtering is only filtering if you have an exit that does not impede the traffic you are passing. As soon as you have to put yourself in the same stream of traffic it is not filtering, it is overtaking. It is why I don’t think ASLs outside extremely heavy trafficked areas work because the perception is unlikely to be going to the front to safely cross a junction (the design intent) but instead it will be perceived as queue jumping, even though it is legitimate – and often the queue of cars will have just past you (probably closely!).
My local example is the Knowle High Street, where the lane width is such that there is no room to pass with oncoming traffic, and there is always traffic. There is usually a queue struggling to get through due to crossings and the road just before is wider, creating an area where I could filter. Along the High Street I can normally maintain the traffic speed, in fact I am usually held up by cars from my pace due to them slowing for ramped crossings that I can take without slowing. I could often pass 5 to 10 cars, but in the end, they will all be behind me and all be slightly aggrieved, even if I don’t really hold them up. Instead I hold station, take primary and stay with the flow. How much time does it cost me – not a lot. How much grief does it save me – from the punishment passes I get just for existing on the road when I don’t filter (so before I have given them an “excuse”) – lots.
When you have temporary traffic lights, there is a lot of driver anxiety about getting across before they change, and also some funny psychology about supporting your teammates behind, so the perception is likely to be that you have stolen a space from the people behind and as a cyclist you are going to stop other drivers getting through the lights – it may not be fair or even reasonable, nut that is the typical thought process. The same would apply to a motorcycle, that by diving in at the front, it has pushed everyone back in the queue.
I’d probably have done the
I’d probably have done the same as you, but I think that’s just a sad reflection of where we are, that motorists have any legitimacy at all in such circumstances. Our default remains “the car must get through, and pronto too, and they’ve already been kept waiting”.
It’s a (historic) high street, it’s not a destination for motor vehicles, neither isn’t up to the task of accommodating through traffic. But we just bow the knee – it’s a motor vehicle, make way or suffer their predictable, nay justified, ire.
I’d like to imagine that our kids would look back on this scenario with the same discomfort we feel when we look at old TV comedies and realise, my parents thought that was OK.
I’d probably have done the
I’d probably have done the same, unless there was a long queue and the light had been red long enough that I thought I might not get to the front before a change to green.
Have to agree – cars (particularly of the contemporary variety) are the invasive species, especially on older urban infrastructure like this.
I feel the conflict is
I feel the conflict is largely inevitable, but it’s due to the nature of the road and the way people drive. Even if you dont filter in those situations at some point you’ve got to ride through there with a vehicle directly behind you, and a driver who likely is frustrated from being delayed by the queueing, your only hope is really sticking to the vehicle ahead of you then because then the driver behind doesnt see the gap.
But as soon as theres a gap,or you leave enough gap, its into conflict again.
Absolutely. It’s degrees of
Absolutely. It’s degrees of conflict, minimising rather than avoiding, unfortunately.
The Toyota driver has driven
The Toyota driver has driven badly, and doesn’t appear to respect the laws of the land more generally if the MOT data is reliable. No excuses for that.
However, by way of pathological example, how would you expect the police to react if you walked into a pub in a former coal-mining town at 10pm after England have just been knocked out of a major football tournament with a go-pro and an “I [heart] Maggie” t-shirt on and ended up not getting the stimulating debate on 1980s industrial relations you were hoping for? Or, equivalently, turning up to the road.cc readers’ forum Christmas drinks with a “my other car’s an Ineos Grenadier” t-shirt? Or, I guess, driving round Alabama with “Hilary for President” painted on your car?
There is a spectrum of antagonistic behaviour. Riding primary when a lane is narrow and asking drivers to wait a few seconds to pass is fair. Some drivers don’t like it, but they need to learn. Weaving through a queue of traffic rather than just waiting at the back when there is no dedicated cycle lane at the other side of the lights then riding primary is adding time to those drivers’ journeys and subtracting hardly any from yours, and it isn’t making you safer because the drivers that just overtook you are going to have to overtake you again. That is going to make people angry. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it will. They won’t listen to reason when they’re angry. It’s not all that much different from trolling on a forum, which I hope you don’t think I’m doing now. I’m not excusing the Toyota driver; that’s not the point of this post.
My point is this: be the change you want to see and maintain the moral high ground.
Or, to put it another way for students of anger management. Pause, count to 10, ask yourself: what is the outcome you want, and what is the best way to get it? Hint: it isn’t needlessly obstructing motorists and waving the Highway Code in their face when they complain.
There is a cycle lane as
There is a cycle lane as shown already with some images.
I do not see a safe cycling
I do not see a safe cycling facility on those photographs. I see some faded paint and a line too close to the edge of the road which drivers will drive to.
You’d have to wonder, what
The paint does not “fade”. So you’d have to wonder, what caused the paint to wear off the road?
1980s throwbacks riding 19mm
1980s throwbacks riding 19mm tyres with 120psi in?
You are Nigel & I claim my
You are Nigel & I claim my five pounds
Sorry, don’t understand.
Sorry, don’t understand. Relatively new here – is this an “in-joke” for the denizens of road.cc?
Nigel = a particular former
Nigel = an alias of a particular former user known for reinstantiation under new aliases. (A forum Grant Shapps [1] [2], if you will). ICMFP is an old newspaper joke reference (learned that one here).
There was a poster called
There was a poster called nigel garrage who changed his username about 6 times and came back under new usernames after being banned. He was a poor troll.
There’s nothing I have read of your posts to suggest you could be nigel.
Unfortunately there have been a fair number of trolls this year the latest being NotBlindedByCyclistsBS (I’ve corrected name) only 4 posts and hasn’t mentioned hi viz, so new folk do get extra attention.
The jury is still out on EnjoyTheRide.
Ah OK. I’m not Nigel.
Ah OK. I’m not Nigel.
I’m basing this on one morning’s experience on the forum – did he start out on your side and type something that wasn’t in line with the approved stance?
Also, do I win five pounds?
There is no approved stance
There is no approved stance just a low tolerance for trolls.
I’ll simply restate what I’ve said before which is if he behaved as he did on somewhere like AVforums, he would not last more than 2 days and after a week he’d get a perma.
Other places you get the option to flag posts as baiting and after a while, the mods would take action and warn the user. There isn’t that option here, so there is a degree of poster moderation.
He is one specfic example of nigel.
Video from a high tech door bell. Dense estate with traffic calming – driver overtakes the cyclist in a careless way far too close. Cyclist then in surprise at the overtake shouts what the fuck was that.
Nigel then baits the cyclist by claiming he told the driver to fuck off.
Pure baiting as the sound was clear enough to all.
Minority views do get a bit more of a spotlight but if people argue their case reasonably then it should not be a problem and you can have a civil discussion.
panda wrote:
Nah. He prettty much showed his colours from the off.
Hirsute was close but he
Hirsute was close but he mixed up a couple.
The one with the Hi Tech Door bell, the driver actually drove directly into the cyclist from behind and knocked him flying. Without any sound, Boo* decided the cyclist had shouted at the driver and “deserved to be knocked down”. The cyclist joined the site and showed his own footage which showed any swearing happened as the collision occurred (which is no suprise) and the driver had just angry at being denied passage due to the cyclists position through traffic calming.
The other one was when a cyclist shouted “Woah” as he was close passed at by a speeding driver who then screeched to a halt, got out the car and attacked the cyclist. Yep cyclist deserved it again according to him
*Boo (shortened version of full first username) did start off quite “normal” but the posted about how TT Bikes were dangerous. When asked for his reasoning, it turned out he accidently bought one as he wanted to go fast and didn’t like it at all. As people didn’t fully agree with him, he started to troll then, deliberately blaming cyclists on NMOTD, cheering on injuries and deaths if TT rider involved. Then he started going into conspiracy theories and finally racism which got him banned. Several months later he came back as Nigel Garage. He was picked up as the returning Boo quite early on by regular posters, but mods seemed to not want to act. Denied ever knowing Boo before stated he was a close friend. Edited usernames to TT Danger and another more heinous username when a female TT rider died- which he blamed on some logon issue on the site at the time. Started to call riders in NMOTD fat and the cause of the close misses (they were not) then got banned again in the end for doxing and either sexist or racist views. He has been back at least one more time and then banned, which is why unfortunately any new user with differing opinions are jumped on heavily even if the opinion differences are minor and valid criticisms. I do personally believe he has another alt account again here as well as another PBU who used to troll in similar anti-cycling ways, just less straight obnoxious as Boo/Nigel.
So welcome Panda, don’t be scared off but do be aware that someone you might / might not agree with on here is ultimately a conspiracy racist nutjob. We tried telling Ashley Neal that, he didn’t believe us either.
Thanks. I forgot the rider
Thanks. I forgot the rider was actually knocked off.
He has certainly left a legacy that new posters get more of a critique. Which is a shame but there have also been a lot of one thread trolls this year which doesn’t help either.
You do have to do an awful lot to get banned so with light moderation, the discussion can be robust at times.
Hi Panda, welcome to the bear
Hi Panda, welcome to the bear pit. I’m afraid to say you will find very little tolerance in this echo chamber for any view other than “two wheels good, four wheels bad” Any sugestion are ruthlessy quashed that there are such things as aggressive cyclists who strap on their Go-Pro and look for situations they can provoke into a near miss video, or the holy grail of a video used in a prosecution. I am also not Nigel but this post will probably get that slung at me. I try to treat everyone on the road with equal consideration and treat them as I would like to be treated. Unfortunately there are many road users out there, on two and four wheels, who feel consideration is ionly what other people owe to them!
Older and sadder wrote:
Not how this thread has gone though.
And as steve k says. If you went on the crystal palace site just to have a go at palace, what reception do you think you’d get?
That’s just daft hyperbole.
Cyclists turn to cameras because of their experiences
See today’s live bog with a post from brooksby (
Anyone seen this (rather depressing) story in the gRandiau?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/sep/01/i-will-never-ride-a… (link is external))
and a photo from me. Unless your are suggesting I somehow contrived the close pass?
Rather a big difference between 10 and 1900 kg though and where the media push the line to revile cyclists as they are freeloaders on the roads.
Older and sadder – yes, I
Older and sadder – yes, I know where you’re coming from. road.cc does have its share of 2wg,4wb thinking, but why should that surprise anyone? It’s a *cycling* forum for heaven’s sake, not the BBC.
I’d say that in practice, most posters are more “2 wheels friends, 4 wheels also friends except for the tiny but very, very visible minority who are psychopaths” school of thought. Which seems to be the reality of the cyclist’s life in any large city in this country.
But what would I know about that? I live in a medium-sized town where car drivers stop to let me through on my bicycle…
Quote:
Where is this heaven?
Older and sadder wrote:
I use a cam and will only release the extreme and stupid clips and then only on Road.cc in order to highlight issues still faced by cyclists be they commuters or leisure. My last one I also released to Ashley Neal and the reaction from his viewers was pretty much one of shock and horror that the motorist did what they did and wasn’t prosecuted. My YouTube channel is mainly private and I don’t have time to administer it anyway so I’m not out there provoking situations and it’s pointless my reporting to the police in Scotland as they won’t progress as I wasn’t injured. My primary use of a camera is for there to be evidence when the possibility of something more serious actually and to prove I wasn’t cycling like a tool.
Older and sadder wrote:
So bored with the cliched whiny phrase “echo chamber” so beloved of certain posters; what does it actually signify beyond “not as many people on this site agree with my opinions as I’d like”? This is a website for people who love cycling, people who share a common love for something often agree with each other, shock.
Would be nice to point out
Would be nice to point out those aggressive cyclists? Maybe the Surrey Police Brompton Team? Inpector Kev? Cycling Mikey? The NMOTD person in this one? Other NMOTD Submitters? Me (the only definite prosecution I got was when a driver didn’t even look, or subsequently brake and stop when I crashed into his car as he shot across me at an island, without the camera he would have got away with it).
What do you think about drivers with dash cams? Or households with Ring cameras and other CCTV?
You’ve gone from ‘dedicated
You’ve gone from ‘dedicated cycle lane’ to ‘safe cycling facility’.
There are very few safe cycling facilities in the UK
panda wrote:
How does one know there’s “no dedicated cycle lane” before one actually gets there?
I’m making a general point.
I’m making a general point. Unless one knows there is safe space waiting for you at the front / other side, why weave through? Surely best to assume there isn’t unless you know the route?
So in short, you are saying
So in short, you are saying don’t filter past traffic waiting at lights because it might annoy drivers?
I agree to a point. I will not always go to the front of the queue, especially it it’s only a few vehicles ahead. I probably would consider it here though, as with 5 vehicles they’d be a risk the lights would change before I got there and the sensor might not detect a waiting cyclist.
In this case, the delay to the motorists caused by the cyclist is probably nothing, as I’m sure the beeping car will have caught up with the pick up truck. If the truck had stayed behind the rider, they would have been delayed by a couple of seconds at most. Which is not much of a hardship to bear for the priviledge of driving your large, dangerous and polluting vehicle through a town centre.
panda wrote:
The lane is narrow. Four seconds after the driver begins their pass it widens slightly so a pass could have been made more safely, six seconds after the pass begins the cyclist turns off, so if the driver had waited a few seconds, something you say is fair enough, they could have proceeded on their way without any necessity for the pass.
Apart from questioning why cyclists should give up one of the main advantages of being a cyclist/motorcyclist, i.e. legally being able to drive past traffic queues, for the convenience of motorists, it is unquestionably safer to ride to the head of the queue and then ride primary than to sit at the back of the queue, with other drivers joining behind you who will then try to squeeze past. As above, the maximum delay imposed on the driver(s) by this cyclist was just a few seconds, something they can make up with a tiny dab on the accelerator when it’s safe to do so. As a London commuter faced with many traffic queues I can say it’s definitely safer to be at the head of them than in the middle or at the back waiting for others to join behind, something tacitly acknowledged by the authorities with their provision of advanced stop boxes.
As an aside I would question the way these roadworks/temporary lights are set up, it would seem to me to be a prime case for a “narrow lanes do not overtake cyclists” sign, which might have prevented the conflict.
Rendel Harris wrote:
My points are general, I wasn’t addressing the specific case in the video. The Toyota driver should have waited.
This comment (I hope I’ve quoted properly) is interesting. The general motoring public do not believe that cyclists have a right to overtake them or ride up the inside and then slow them down. I’m saying – others may disagree – that whether doing that is legal or not, it’s not helpful.
This is just my opinion, others may differ. If I sit primary at the back of a queue and when the queue starts to move I remain primary until it’s safe for any cars behind me to pass, then pull across to let traffic past, then I think that is as safe as filtering to the front and doing the same. I also think it’s more considerate. I expect consideration from motorists not just an attitude of “the law says it’s OK to do it so I’m going to do it”, so that’s how I behave myself.
panda wrote:
I’m sure they don’t, but what the GMP believe is secondary to both the law and cyclist safety. I respect your opinion that it’s safer to wait behind, but for the reasons I previously outlined I disagree. In addition, this whole “slowing down traffic” business has to be addressed. We’re not talking about the cliched and generally mythical “I got held up by a hundred cyclists cycling two abreast on country lanes for fifty miles” here but a few seconds’ delay – something you did actually say was OK. The motorist has lost next to no time and could make it up in a couple of seconds with a dab on the pedal if they’re that bothered. I agree that motorists and cyclists should be considerate of each other; in a situation where the motorist is clearly expressing annoyance with the cyclist, and subjecting them to a close pass (albeit not a terribly dangerous example)) for causing them literally four seconds’ delay by putting themselves in a position where they felt safest, it’s the motorist who’s showing no consideration, in my view.
I’ve never said the Toyota
I’ve never said the Toyota driver shouldn’t have waited!
There’s two elements to it – there’s the “what’s the delay?” part which motorists ALWAYS overstate. If I’m driving behind a pair of cyclists on a country lane at 20mph for half a mile when I would otherwise have been doing 40mph, I have not lost 10 minutes. It’s a judgement call if you know the road you’re on is narrow for a while whether to let someone past. In my experience cyclists and tractor drivers get it about right.
Interestingly, I believe 30 seconds is how long people will wait for an elevator to arrive before they start repeatedly pressing the button and grinding their teeth.
Then there’s the “was it necessary?” part. Removing NMotD818 from it, I think we broadly agree – if I’m on a bicycle and you’re traffic, you should be prepared to increase your journey time by a few seconds if it decreases the probability of me not completing my journey at all. That means filtering is sometimes OK, sometimes it’s inconsiderate.
I appreciate the nuance here.
I appreciate the nuance here. Particular your noting of the asymmetry of “but I was delayed by the cyclists!” – drivers weren’t at a standstill (cyclists dismount!), they didn’t have to pedal back up to speed from a standstill, they merely drove slower for a period (adjust position of foot on pedal).
Yes – and it’s right to identified this is a “human” thing, rather than being something special which happens when you get into a car. However we (our designers / lawmakers / planners / police) need to understand this also applies to cyclists, pedestrians, the disabled… The convenience of the majority outweighing that of the current minority is one thing. We shouldn’t be creating situations (or letting existing ones continue) where we set up a choice between safety and convenience for vulnerable road users, where on the other side of the “balance” is just more or less annoyance for the motorist. This safety / convenience divide applies much less in the case of motor vehicles because decades of safety improvements mitigate the consequences of drivers’ errors to a great degree.
Again – looking at best practice this is understood:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/why-are-we-still-waiting/
And good cycle infra improves both safety AND convenience often by sending motorists a completely different route. After all traffic lights are motor vehicle infrastructure, unnecessary where there are only cyclists.
panda wrote:
Does that last sentence not undo what you’ve said before? Who’s being inconsiderate? Do my hurt feelings / frustration (in my car) trump your need to be and feel safe (on bike / on foot)?
As things stand people hate cyclists because they perceive them as competitors for space who are freeloaders and cheats. They get ahead and don’t “pay the costs”. They’re clearly an “other” e.g. not motorists (because cycling), a minority, they’re “not playing by the same rules” e.g. able to filter where motorists can’t. Plus they are then “in the way” when the cars get up to speed.
Unfortunately the legality or otherwise and HC guidance doesn’t really affect what is an emotional response.
Fixing things? I think where there are cycle tracks / paths e.g. it’s clear this is space which is not usable by vehicles and that cycling really is a different mode this perceived conflict goes away. An inexact analogy but consider – do drivers get outraged at passengers in a train running parallel to the road passing them?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Does that last sentence not undo what you’ve said before? Who’s being inconsiderate? Do my hurt feelings / frustration (in my car) trump your need to be and feel safe (on bike / on foot)?— panda
Not the way I intended it, no. Sometimes it’s better to appear inconsiderate because you’re reducing your chance of being seriously injured due to a driver not realising you’re there (maybe not even the one you pull infront of). So sometimes filtering to get to the front appears inconsiderate but is reducing risk. One could also ride up the right hand side on the wrong side of the road and park oneself at the front when there was no risk where you were. That would be inconsiderate if you’re just then going to hold people up. Or you could try riding up the inside/outside and have the lights change and have the traffic start moving in which case you may have even increased your risk.
I’m saying there’s sometimes a trade-off between safety and courtesy, that’s all.
As I said earlier, be the change you want to see. Statistically, by riding a bicycle to work and not driving an SUV, you’ve reduced the overall risk to everyone trying to get to work that day even if yours has gone up slightly. That has to be encouraged for the benefit of all.
Riding up the “wrong side” if
Riding up the “wrong side” if you’re overtaking safely in the opposite lane is fine. It isn’t considerate and the concept of holding up traffic is unhelpful. People on bikes are traffic. Filtering up the wrong side might be where there is an obstacle or the wrong way down a one way street. It’s not using the other lane per se.
Filtering is not being uncourteous, nor is going to the front of a queue of traffic. Courtesy is very subjective. You could argue that drivers in stationary or slow moving traffic should be courteous and allow (where possible) a nice space for people on bikes to not be delayed whilst they’re clogging up the road space.
panda wrote:
My bad – too much screen time and I misread you!
As for “I’m saying there’s sometimes a trade-off between safety and courtesy, that’s all.” I agree. The reason for people getting triggered is there have been a procession of posters on here sealioning on the subject – that essentially courtesy (to the driver) trumps feeling of safety – or even safety tout court – of the cyclist.
Amen. “Cyclists, stay awesome” is it for me. I and many here enjoy cycling and see benefits in it so cycle regardless. However part of the reason this remains at a few % of trips overall is that most people perceive cycling as dangerous and unpleasant. That’s because of the interaction with motor vehicles. People aren’t saints or idiots – few people are altruistic in the sense of taking on risk on from others where they sense little benefit to themselves. So “encouragement” alone (what we get from the authorities) will never shift the needle. If we collectively want that cycling has to be made more pleasant and convenient (for some trips) than driving.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Equally the cyclist would lose next to no time by waiting, 8s -10s perhaps by being 6th vehicle through the lights instead of first.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Less about being held up, and more about risking anyone coming up behind being more concerned with beating the lights than watching for whoever’s in their way. It’s always a judgement call. Sometimes that judgement is to filter, sometimes it isn’t.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I don’t see how that is unquestionable at all. I would say it is definitely safer to sit central in a traffic queue than be at the side. (Which is a shame as it is more comfortable to be at the side and put standing foot on the kerb while waiting). Whether the car behind you that might squeeze past was in the queue when you got there, or arrived behind you makes no difference at all. In fact there is a realistic possibility of me keeping up with the car in front as it goes through the narrow lane, making the pass unnecessary.
There is also the possibility that no car arrives behind the cyclist, making being at the back undoubtedly safer than being at the front, with 5 drivers wanting to overtake.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Quite so. If we all had crystal balls we’d all make different decisions.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
…and a different sound when walking
panda wrote:
I’d wear that.
Utter tripe. Akin to your
Utter tripe. Akin to your door was unlocked so you were asking to be burgled, you didn’t have hi-vis on…., you were wearing a short skirt ….. etc.
Guy on the bike didn’t break the law or endager anyone. Guy in the 3 tonne vehicle did drive carelessly and did endager someone.
Read my very last comment.
Read my very last comment. Twice.
If you want to disgree and convince me of the merit of your argument, is it best to a) insult my post and counter an argument I didn’t make, or b) do something else. What does your approach achieve?
I’m just a cyclist who wants a lower probability of being run over, via better infrastructure, better driver awareness, better enforcement of the law and – most importantly of all – less anger out there.
Your victim blaming was
Your victim blaming was insulting to me. You are right though, better not to insult your post. I apologise unreservedly.
Your pathological examples (which by the way make no sense as they’re not highlighting obsessive behaviour and filtering is not obsessive) only serve, in my opinion, to justify the drivers behaviour. If I put another road user’s life at risk because I felt they had antaganosied me then I’m not driving to the required standard. It was a punishment pass. The person on the bike can ride anywhere in the lane and where there is a narrow section I would block. That is where the person cycling could improve their roadcraft. It’s their decision not the drivers. In this instance I think the police should have given the driver an advisory letter. All they’ve actually done is send a message to other drivers that if you feel it’s justified then go ahead and make your dangerous manouevre.
Everyone who cycles makes their own decision about filtering. My decison is based on physical safety from moving vehicles to my side and oncoming, and also on observing the HC. It’s not based on whether or not I’m going to upset someone driving because I got in front of them. The same applies when I’m considering an overtaking manouevre when I’m cycling or driving.
I didn’t victim blame! In
I didn’t victim blame! In every post I’ve said the Toyota driver should have waited!
I’m not justifying the driver’s behaviour, in the same way I’m not saying I think it’s right and proper that anyone seeing a stranger walk into “their” pub is within their rights to give them a good shoe-ing. I’m saying – not in the context of *this* incident – that in general if there’s no safety reason to ride up the outside of a line of cars waiting at lights and then take primary slowing them down (yes, I know, only for a few seconds) then it doesn’t help the cause of the cycling side of the debate.
In response to others talking about the swerve; yes it may have been a belated attempt to take primary and prevent a dangerous overtake attempt, but it could have been almost anything – it doesn’t matter – it evidences why 1.5m is necessary.
Except he didn’t really drive
Except he didn’t really drive carelessly did he? The only thing endangering the cyclist was the cyclist’s position.
The key thing for me is that it appears that the rider moved further into the road when they realised the Toyota was attempting to pass.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
the cyclist did not materialise in that position, the driver new he was there and tried to squeee past dangerously close.
If I shove someone on the stairs I was dangerous, I do not say “But you should have been using the handrail, you put yourself in danger”
In other words I am not entitled to endanger another person becuase they are doing something that I think they should not do.
ride2smile wrote:
Both of these statements are true, and yet filtering to the front was not necessary and didn’t really benefit the cyclist. So you can all keep filtering to the front as the law allows, but the result will be more drivers overtaking you once the lights change, with a percentage of those overtakes being closer than you would be comfortable with.
Well said. The risk with
Well said. The risk with reporting this sort of thing is it reduces the focus on more serious reports. To me, that pass didn’t look dangerously close or aggressive, although it was clearly closer than the HC requires — and I’m not surprised at the drivers’ reactions to OP’s “barging” to the front, legal or not. I would have waited at the back of the queue myself, like a good Brit.
Well this is of course the
Well this is of course the fundamental problem with NMotD. The clue is in the title – there’s one more or less every day. I don’t know enough about the economics of the site to know whether churning content is optimal for revenue, but I have often thought it would be better to pick one of the absolute shockers, leave it on the front page and make more of a concerted effort with the CPS on it, like wot the cycling barrister did with his death threat. The problem with daily is that each one sparks an hour of keyboard mashing then fades into memory along with the other 800-odd.
FWIW I wouldnt have filtered
FWIW I wouldnt have filtered there, I dont think theres enough room to do it safely and it then muddled the impact of the Toyota close pass, because all that oncoming traffic whilst filtering, are they not close passing also ?
But if I had found myself at the front of that queue, I’d know damn well if I leave any hint of a car/truck shape sized gap that drivers going to go for it, makes no difference if your at the front in full view or at the back with cars joining behind you,leave an inch and theyll take a go at it, so imo you have to ride to block in situations like that,nd be aggressive about if necessary, not just appeal to drivers better nature about what they know they shouldn’t do.
panda wrote:
Ooh, now there’s an idea (the Christmas drinks, not the t-shirt)
Almost certain to lead to
Almost certain to lead to tears before bedtime. Don’t road.cc readers use up enough police time already?
Having said that playing “guess who” could be wild.
Christmas *ride* however… can’t recall whether Rendel’s impressive fundraiser was open to all comers but I’m sure there’s a bunch of Zwifters could get together.
chrisonatrike wrote:
It wasn’t but that’s certainly an idea, thinking about this year’s (which will be the last for the time being, don’t want to compassion fatigue to set in!) at the moment, will add that to consideration…
But what if I told you that
But what if I told you that being the change I want to see and needlessly obstructing motorists are the same thing?
I want to see less cars on the road, and if I know humans that means making them less convenient than something else.
I’m sorry, but I think I’m
I’m sorry, but I think I’m siding with the police perspective here… well not the ‘barging’ comment. Its a fair assessment however, that the cyclist actively put themselves into a vulnerable position, and then generated a situation by taking primary and looking to control traffic. Looking at the space available, there was plenty of room for a safe overtake if the cyclist had not taken primary, and no reason, from my perspective, for the cyclist to need to be in primary.
I can see how this can be perceived as deliberately antagonistic behaviour.
But yeah, even presented with a seemingly antagonistic cyclist, the correct thing for the Toyota driver to do would still be to sit back and wait for a more accommodating opportunity to pass.
However, I can appreciate that taking further police action in this instance would effectively reward the cyclist’s conduct, which whilst strictly within the highway code guidelines, was in my opinion a very poor application of them.
I’d draw parallels here with a footballer diving.. it was a technical rather than blatant foul, and the refs letting play continue.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
As I understand it (Mrs HawkinsPeter is more of a football fan than me), a player showing aggressive, unsportsmanlike behaviour would get an instant red card. (The analogy is weak though as football players are more or less the same size as each other)
On the other hand, it’s a
On the other hand, it’s a 20mph limit; exactly how many seconds of the driver’s precious time is being weighed here against a human life?
As to the cyclist “putting themselves in a vulnerable position”, how? There was no danger other than that the HiLux driver would choose to make. It is telling that we assume the driver has no agency, the vulnerability arises from being in front of them.
This is precisely a situation where the police should act, because the driver thinks he’s allowed to enforce his right against a cyclist regardless of danger. And when the driver has finished explaing how the cyclist was a dickhead and should have moved over and shouldn’t have been there anyway and didn’t leave enough room … yes sir, that’s why you should not aim your car at him.
“Putting themselves in a
“Putting themselves in a vulnerable position” could be applied to any cyclist using a shared road with motor vehicles.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Nah the motorist ‘generated the situation’ when they started their car.
I occasionally use this road.
I occasionally use this road. I wouldn’t have filtered but absolutely take primary.
This is very much “little-englander” territory and you don’t have to cycle far before you come across some terrible driving.
I’m struggling with this one
I’m struggling with this one as I wouldn’t have ridden to the front of a queue at temporary traffic lights and if I have ever found myself at the front I will usually wave cars waiting behind me to go through first. But I’m a social rider not a commuter so do not come across this every day.
However, the layout/width of the road and some of the comments indicate that these ‘temporary’ lights are a bit of a permanent fixture so filtering is recommended/allowed. Very confusing.
Having said all of that, the pass was crap and only delayed the Toyota seconds.
One might make the argument
One might make the argument that the chap on the bike antagonised the drivers but (i) it’s not an argument that holds a lot of weight and (ii) highlights a more general point I want to make:
Why is it that when someone apparently acts like a bit of a dick on the road, the person (or people) affected feel(s) the need to respond by being a bigger dick?
The same is also true of the
The same is also true of the internet.
If you have time to read, I’d recommend “Traffic” by Tom Vanderbilt which explores what it is about being behind the wheel of a car which makes people behave in ways they wouldn’t with a shopping trolley in the supermarket.
I’ve been dinged by badly
I’ve been dinged by badly pushed trolleys in the past…..
Poor riding. Why taking up so
Poor riding. Why taking up so much of the lane? Its not how i ride. Seems like looking for trouble that one.
Remember this?
Remember this?
But, but but, they are
But, but but, they are holding up the car!!!
IMO there is no reason to
IMO there is no reason to filter to the front, there are only 5 cars, and it is near certain the 5 cars and the cyclist will go through on the next phase of the lights.
I undecided about whether there is enough space for a safe overtake, as looking at the video at 48 seconds, there is barely 1.5m (police own guidance) from the toyota to the pavement, never mind the position a cyclist would have to take. However I think I would have riddden through there just outside the yellow lines and would have had about 1m from the passing toyota, which I would have felt comfortable with at that speed.
In real life it feels a lot
In real life it feels a lot narrower through there than it looks in that clip.Sitting in a car at the white line at the permanent lights you do feel a bit like you’re going to lose a wing to oncoming traffic.
I’m pretty sure that last time i was there the bit outside the Waitrose after the left turn which was down to one lane actually had signs at the temporary lights saying no overtaking cyclists.
.
I agree, poor riding. I
I agree, poor riding. I wouldn’t overtake on the outside and over the white line. You don’t know when the lights will change …
Hardly barging a way to the
Hardly barging a way to the front. Filtering is entirely legal and normal. Who wants to sit behind a stinking diesel pickup on a hot day in a queue of traffic crapping up their lungs with pollutants?
The driver of the car behind the pickup had no problem with leaving distance and not feeling the urgent need to overtake the cyclist at all costs.
The aggressive pickup driver not only put the cyclist at risk, but potentially pedestrians and any operatives working in the carriageway.
Personally, I might not have filtered, but that’s my choice not a criticism of the cyclist in the clip.
Quote:
Although that driver felt the need to give the cyclist the Ashley Neal treatment even though the cyclist had already turned off and was out of his way. It might have been a supportive horn use, it probably wasn’t.
The cyclist chose to overtake
The cyclist chose to overtake a line of cars, when he could see that they were stopped in a queue, and when he could not see whether there was a safe space for him to move into if cars came the other way. As it happened, he was lucky that there was a car closer to the kerb that he was able to pull alongside, but it still looks as though he was over the white line. That, quite simply, was poor cycling, and I imagine that the police thought the same. Not that that in some way excuses a close pass by a car.
Filtering.
Filtering.
If you will pass only one or two vehicles, it’s seldom worth filtering. Take the lane instead, so that vehicles behind you won’t squeeze past you.
If there is a queue of traffic that’s stationary or moving at around walking pace, then as long as there’s space to do so safely, it’s worth filtering. As its name suggests, filtering is not one manoeuvre; you will move out of the traffic stream and back in again, possibly multiple times.
Before changing your position on the road, look over the relevant shoulder first. Even in stationary traffic, a cyclist or motorcyclist may be in motion right behind you.
Pass with plenty of space and don’t feel obliged to stay in your lane. Cyclists can filter past a traffic jam by crossing the dashed white line and riding in the oncoming lane – as long as it’s clear. Any oncoming traffic has right of way. Oncoming drivers may pull over to the left to give you room. If not, you need to rejoin the traffic stream (see below).
Be alert, especially where there are junctions to your right: drivers you’re filtering past may turn right with little or no warning. Or they may attempt a U-turn. Watch out for road furniture too, such as traffic islands, and for pedestrians crossing the road in between vehicles.
You put the stuff in quotes
You put the stuff in quotes but you give no indication of their provenance?
Except for the text in blue
Except for the text in blue ahead of them – it’s a link, you know?
https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/filtering
Having seen the source, it is
Having seen the source, it is a website for a company that has a vested interest in promoting bike hire. So I disregard its advice, which is directly contrary to the highway code. The advice to filter to the right when “Oncoming drivers may pull over …” is simply dangerous.
It’s not from the perspective
It’s not from the perspective of the cyclist but the amended Highway Code rule 151 here makes allowance for it (yes, a “should”…):
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
Rule 151
In slow-moving traffic. You should:
…
allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross in front of you
be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.
More – measured – law analysis here. This is also a company making money from cycling (unlike the Highway Code which is subsidised by the hard-pressed motorist obviously): http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling
What you and others seem to
What you and others seem to be saying that it’s ok for a cyclist to bend the rules and go to pass a line of traffic even if they can’t see if the road is clear to do so until they might regain a safe position on their own side. With attitudes like that is no wonder that motorists get pissed off with such cyclists.
Which rules are you saying
Which rules are you saying are being bent ? Clearly not rule 151
You’re talking bollocks. The
You’re talking bollocks. The 151 is saying what vehicle drivers should do, not saying what cyclists should do.
I’ve had enough of this. If some of your are so blinkered that you can’t even contemplate that a cyclist might be in the wrong, you can go shout in your own echo chamber.
So which rules are being bent
So which rules are being bent?
Where do I say that the cyclist is not in the wrong? Or can never be in the wrong?
You said you’d had enough about hi viz but came back and we all had a civilised discussion.
Pretty sure this discussion can be civilised.
Btw I do generally call out cyclists on nmotd if I think they could have done something different.
I haven’t actually made a comment on the specific one here.
JimM777 wrote:
Great!, off you fuck then.
JimM777 wrote:
Dont think there’s any bending going on. It’s simply good road craft. Advanced Drivers, Traffic Branch, Motorcycle Tutors and a plethora of road safety bodies will all tell you that the safest place to filter is the offside. You are visible both directions, you can see the road clearer and the options to pull in. Sadly a lot of motorists don’t see it this way and get wound up when you pass them. I once had a guy deliberately accelerate to close the bike sized gap to prevent me dropping into that he nearly shunted the vehicle in front. Do you expect a cyclist to stand astride their bike and waddle it forward 6 inches a time in a mile long tailback or hop off and walk the length of the traffic jam before recommencing cycling?
There is no rule to bend.
There is no rule to bend. Anyone can overtake at that point. The reason it would be frowned upon by a car is that they are so big they couldn’t “squeeze” back in, so would block oncoming traffic. Also, remember the cyclists head is not on his handlebars. So add a couple of feet to the view.
No it’s a part of a nation al
No it’s a part of a nation al scheme to purchase a bike. The promotion is done by active travel groups, employers and sites like this.
Which country do you live in ?
Ok Jim, I suspect the
Ok Jim, I suspect the official cycling organisation of the UK is also not good enough because they also have cycling in their title. But they offer the EXACT SAME ADVICE in this video. (longer linked text to be clearer for you.)
They also offer the advice that after filtering, if the road narrows and you don’t feel it is safe for a vehicle behind to overtake, then take the lane, exactly like the OP did when he saw the road conditions ahead.
JimM777 wrote:
It’s worth remembering that what the cyclist can see and what the camera can see can be two different things.
MattKelland wrote:
Exactly. And a better idea of what I can see comes from the headcam.
JimM777 wrote:
From what I can make out the cyclist was pretty much doing the right thing here and was in full control of the manoeuvre and his surroundings. He also pulled in when there was a risk posed by oncoming vehicles. The only bit I would not have done was to weave round to the nearside of the SUV but that’s me personally. He did the correct thing by stopping just before that. And whether he was over the line or not he still stopped.
giff77 wrote:
The reason I continued in front of the Toyota is that otherwise I’d have been at an angle behind him – not in any position to move off in a controlled fashion when the lights changed – and there’s no way I was going to wait on the outside of the lane and risk the previous vehicle undertaking.
I’m not one of the ‘cyclists
I’m not one of the ‘cyclists can do no wrong’ brigade and I seem to remember I have supported you when you’ve said cyclists should be more careful around peds on shared use paths (apologies if it was someone else) but this was as safe as filtering can be.
The camera is much lower than the riders eyeline, they were slow and cautious, gave priority to oncoming cars and stopped before the ‘WAIT HERE’ sign fully in the eyeline of the front driver. I don’t believe there was a white line as these seem to be temporary lights which i would agree need more caution than regular light controlled junctions.
Filtering always looks worse on camera unless it’s a helmet cam and even then you don’t get the benefit of the riders peripheral vision.
NOtotheEU wrote:
Correct. You can actually see the permanent white line 10 yards or so *ahead* of the temporary light.
All the discussion on the
All the discussion on the filtering and whose fault, and not one mention about the BOLAS car on double yellows blocking most of the narrow pavement on that side. Nicely done mate, nicely done.
Nothing to see there. Rider
Nothing to see there. Rider sensitive, driver did his best to keep away. Speeds slow. Police poor choice of phrase ‘barging to front’
It is a very loaded phrase.
It is a very loaded phrase.
It seems drivers of these big
It seems drivers of these big covered pickups struggle with proper driving at temporary traffic lights.
This should start at the clip but if not, it is 1m37 into the video.
See also NMOTD 786
See also NMOTD 786