The “common criminal behaviour” of dangerous drivers around cyclists needs to be eradicated before we “lose a vital transport choice”, says National Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman. The former Olympic champion made the comments in response to a video posted on social media today by the National Foundation for Retired Service Animals (NFRSA), which showed the charity’s founder Lady Bathurst, cycling the length of Britain to raise awareness for the foundation, on the receiving end of an extremely close pass by an oncoming driver overtaking a lorry at speed.
The shocking incident – which, as Boardman pointed out, saw three cyclists, supposedly protected by hi-vis clothing, “almost killed” – took place yesterday as Lady Bathurst, the former High Sheriff of Gloucesthershire, crossed the border into Scotland, two weeks into her attempt to ride her e-bike from Land’s End to John O’Groats to celebrate the NFRSA’s first year and to raise awareness of the charity’s work.
It was such a happy day going over the border yesterday – but it nearly ended in disaster. Lady B was in the cycle lane, waving to fellow cyclists, just as a woman in a red car dangerously overtook a lorry, nearly hitting her, & causing the support car to swerve. Not a nice… pic.twitter.com/ZMEV7hW6EI
— NFRSA (@The_NFRSA) September 27, 2023
However, as the 58-year-old cycled alone on the hard shoulder, waving to two cyclists riding in the opposite direction, a motorist attempted to overtake a lorry driver approaching a bend in the road, missing Lady Bathurst by centimetres at speed and causing her to wobble.
The overtaking driver also manages to pull in front of the lorry just as another motorist, driving a support vehicle as part of the charity ride, appears around the corner.
Drone footage captured by the charity also shows the lorry driver narrowly passing the two cyclists on the other side of the road.
“F***ing hell,” the Countess can be heard saying in the video, posted this morning on X, formerly Twitter, by the NFRSA, as she came to a stop on the hard shoulder shortly after the near miss.
“My knees are actually shaking. It was literally inches away. I was waving… and I laughed, and just wobbled out, and she… I very nearly was a dead Countess, not a cycling Countess!”
Posting the clip of the incident this morning, the NFRSA wrote: “It was such a happy day going over the border yesterday – but it nearly ended in disaster.
“Lady B was in the cycle lane, waving to fellow cyclists, just as a woman in a red car dangerously overtook a lorry, nearly hitting her, and causing the support car to swerve. Not a nice experience at all.
“Please motorists – be careful when overtaking on country roads.”
Reposting the video, Lady Bathurst added: “I was riding alone yesterday afternoon, in beautiful Scotland on the NFRSA Charity Bike Ride, when this happened. It was unbelievably frightening and shook me up.
“Please, when overtaking on country roads, be aware of what might be on the other side of the road. Thank you.”
> Chris Boardman speaks about losing his mum at the hands of killer driver for the first time
Meanwhile, Active Travel England’s Boardman, who today called on the government to back and provide funding for cycling schemes at a meeting at 10 Downing Street, described the shocking incident as something that “shouldn’t be normal, but it is”.
“Three people – ‘protected by high viz’ – almost killed whilst doing something wholly beneficial for society. This shouldn’t be normal, but it is,” Boardman wrote.
“This is common criminal behaviour and we need to stop it or we will lose a vital transport choice.”
Despite Boardman’s comments, some social media users responded to the video by arguing that Lady Bathurst should have been wearing hi-vis and that the charity cyclist was lacking “concentration” at the time of the close pass, prompting the Countess herself to intervene in the discussion.
“The top had reflector strips. I wasn’t wearing my coat. Hot!” she said, in response to one social media user who claimed that “cyclists MUST wear hi-vis clothing. It’s a no-brainer.”
“To be honest,” Lady Bathurst continued, “She was going that fast, I’m not sure she’d have seen me if I’d had fireworks coming out of my head!”
Replying to someone who accused her of “showboating”, she said: “Showboating? Really?? I was BEING FRIENDLY and returning a wave from a cyclist on the other side of the road. I was NOT expecting a red missile to narrowly miss me. What is wrong with you?”
Another social media user also attempted to pin at least some of the blame on the charity cyclist, arguing that “you took your eyes off the situation unfolding in front of you to smile and converse with the cyclist across the road instead of moving over to the left of the cycle lane as a precaution. That wave almost cost you your life.”
“I could have been doing a handstand and cartwheels,” Lady Bathurst pithily replied. “The fact is at whatever stage, I was safely within the lines of the bike lane. The motorist overtaking did so in a reckless manner and was doing well over 70.
“I’d argue the stupidity of the driver nearly cost me my life.”
107 thoughts on ““This shouldn’t be normal, but it is”: Chris Boardman blasts “common criminal behaviour” after overtaking driver “almost kills” cyclists – “protected by hi-vis” – on charity ride”
Holy crap.
Holy crap.
But, I mean I saw a guy on a bike jump a red light the other day so I guess she doesn’t deserve any respect. Or something.
She swore.
She swore.
No motoring offence…
Isn’t that how it works?
it happened in scotland, so
it happened in scotland, so it’s more of;
‘were you killed? no? oh well then nothing to do about it.’
Polis Scotland. “Well we
Polis Scotland. “Well we asked the registered keeper but they said they had no memory of the incident.
Mind how you go…”
it happened in scotland, so
[duplicated]
I don’t want to know how many
I don’t want to know how many of the Xcreters are blaming the cyclist, do I?
No. Don’t tell me.
Seeing it in real time it
Seeing it in real time it almost doesn’t look bad because it happens in the blink of an eye. But it is *really* bad. Terrifying.
I suspect the car driver does
I suspect the car driver does not think they have done anything wrong and does not remember the incident. This is also a common problem with narrow cycle lanes, once everyone has their own lane the leave 1.5m (or 1 m in towns) goes out of the window.
Chris Boardman is
Chris Boardman is unfortunately correct. This is normal. It happens every day.
Couple of things I see from
Couple of things I see from this.
1. The truck was within 1.5m of the other cyclists. No one seems to have complained about that?
2. The overtake, obviously should have given the oncoming cyclist 1.5m because they might swerve.
3. The cyclist. It was obvious from the drone footage they had no control over that bike, from the moment the hand wave started they were veering across the lane and only corrected when they spotted the car coming. If the car hadnt been there 100% they would have swerved out the lane. This is why 1.5m is required.
4. If there had been bollards on that lane do people expect the 1.5m to not apply? seems so from many comments. But in this case the cyclist probably would have hit them and thrown themselves into the road.
I have issues with pushing some people like this to do charity rides. You are taking people who never cycle and putting them onto obviously dangerous roads (they shouldnt be dangerous, but as we see, they are). At what point does someone become responsible for pushing people into dangerous situations. I no longer encourage people to cycle who have no situational awareness or inbuilt self preservation, i couldnt live with myself if I encouraged someone to do something that got them killed from an obvious existing danger (even if it ‘shouldnt be’ dangerous).
You’ve started this in 4. but
You’ve started this in 4. but:
5. The road. More sensible places (eg. NL) I think it would be a legal requirement to have a separate cycle path on a road like this (I’m assuming it’s not signed 30mph here! ) Otherwise AFAIK the road becomes legally “no cycling” and presumably it’s “and why haven’t you made provision?” for the LA.
That sorts out the bollard issue also. Even in the UK we’re starting to recognise that bollards are powerful friends but dangerous enemies. So pedestrians and cyclists should not be directed near them if possible.
It’s the B7076 just north of
It’s the B7076 just north of Moffat, and there’s a 6-lane motorway (the M74) right alongside for fast traffic. Between junction 14 (Elvanfoot) and junction 15 (Moffat) there’s no side roads to speak of and only a literal handful of residences. Frankly all non-access traffic that can use the motorway (so everything except tractors, mopeds and perhaps learners) should be forced onto it.
The truck driver may have
The truck driver may have seen the overtake coming and knew he couldn’t give the cyclists on his side more space, particularly if he had seen the oncoming cyclist. It’s bad design. If there had been oncoming traffic, particularly another truck, he wouldn’t be able to move further over.
At which point you slow down
At which point you slow down and wait for a safe spot. And then it is even more of a danger for the car driver because they performed a dangerous overtaking manouvre into oncoming traffic.
The probability is that there was not any traffic. At which point, the truck should have, in order to protect both cyclists, remained positioned centrally in the road to prevent a dangerous overtake from behind.
Slow down. Who? The motorist
Slow down. Who? The motorist or truck driver? Assuming truck driver, as my comment related to them. Probably not time to slow down a large truck at 60 mph in reaction to a car overtaking, or to make it any less dangerous. The road design is just dangerous. The fact that there is a cycle lane makes drivers think it’s ok to pass, because the cyclists are in their own lane. It’s not seen as overtaking.
Both. From the off, the truck
Both. From the off, the truck driver should have slowed down well before approaching the cyclist if there was any indication that an overtake would be a risky manouvre. The maximum speed limit for a vehicle of that size would be 50mph on a single carriageway road too so 60mph is kind of moot – if the driver is doing that, automatically speeding = illegal. I did not mean at any point once committed to the overtake should the truck driver have hit the brakes. Having to hit the brakes on any overtaking manouvre is a guarantee that it was not safely and legally done.
As for the car, they have clearly performed an overtaking manouvre without checking it is safe to do so. Providing the truck driver is following the adjusted speed limit for larger commercial vehicles, a car is more than within its right to overtake as long as they do so safely and legally. But you neet to know what is ahead of you before you make such a manouvre.
I get the point on the design of cycle lane, and it is absolutely a design flaw that is misread by drivers and as such those actions are in clear violation of the Highway Code. But at the same time, we are not talking about a car going in the same direction as Lady Bathurst, but the opposite direction. The lane was therefore not clear for the car to perform a safe overtake on the truck.
Yes, in an ideal world. The
Yes, in an ideal world. The point is that because the cyclists are in cycle lanes motorists don’t see this as overtaking. The truck driver didn’t give the cyclists on his side as much room as he would if they were not in a cycle lane, the thinking being that otherwise what is the point of the cycle lane being there? I expect the overtaking car did check it was safe to overtake, in their judgement, but assuming they did see Lady Bathurst, they don’t see her as being in the lane they are using to overtake. They see the lane as being clear, because the cyclist is in a separate cycle lane.
I make the point that the car could have been passing her from behind, because probably 9 out of 10 drivers would still pass her from behind at 50-60mph. Why would a car overtaking from the other direction read it any differently?
Yes, if only this road were
Yes, if only this road were wider we wouldn’t have large, wide vehicles hooning down it, and longer sight lines would obviously lead to slower driving and safer overtakes…
I blame the design … of the cyclist. If only they were a lot narrower. Or were equipped with much bigger brighter lights and were more visible – say they were wider, had four wheels, weighed a couple of tons and were capable of speeds of 70mph or so…
Whilst it is certainly less
Whilst it is certainly less than ideal I’lm willing to give the truck driver the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. Perhaps they had intended to give the cyclists more room but the recklessly speeding car driver suddenly appeared and they realised pulling out more would put a lot of lives at greater risk as would slowing down and waiting. The blame is predominantly on the car driver IMO.
I can’t believe she is doing
I can’t believe she is doing this ride without hi-viz AND without bright flashing lights, especially on roads like this. She was not paying attention to the road ahead. She obviously didn’t see the car coming. If she had, she would have been well over to the left. She very nearly veered into the oncoming car. Hopefully she will have learnt a valuable lesson from this near miss.
The overtaking manoeuvre probably was dangerous but unfortunately that’s very common on this type of road in Scotland. The road/cycle lanes is dangerous by design. Organising a charity ride with an inexperienced cyclist and not insisting on hi Viz and lights is irresponsible. I would say that ultimately her stupidity/ lack of attention / inexperience nearly cost her her life!
“The overtaking manoeuvre was
“The overtaking manoeuvre was probably dangerous”, probably?! There were cyclists on both sides of the road, a long truck was overtaking two cyclists, and there was a car coming from the other direction. What part of the manoeuvre wasn’t dangerous?
“Probably”, because I wasn’t
“Probably”, because I wasn’t driving, so I can’t be sure. However, that’s just normal in parts of Scotland, and right or wrong, it’s to be expected. I’m not condoning it but I’ve regularly seen far worse. Personally, I wouldn’t have overtaken, but I very rarely do anyway.
Unpopular opinion on Hi-Vis –
Unpopular opinion on Hi-Vis – Being seen DOES NOT EQUAL Being Safe.
Yes you are more likely to be seen. But does it stop people doing stupid shit in cars? NO.
Hi Viz primarily in conditions with good visibility do not make you “safer”.
Wearing Hi Vis does not prompt people to give more room than if not if in both situations you were seen. That is only how much risk and stupidity that an entitled minority of motorists decide to act upon. Something completely out of the control of yourself.
In poor conditions, or in a bustling urban environment where your movements may blend into the background, there is a greater case of not being seen but that is a factor for investigating officers to decide whether it was a major contributing factor to an incident.
Screaming “No Hi Viz” as an excuse to try and pardon a bad driver’s actions is piss poor and needs to be stopped.
We have had hazard perception segments of driving theory tests for over 10 years now, I was one of the first to take it when I learned to drive. And my biggest takeaway was that drivers are supposed to be constantly scanning for hazards from an erratic lorry to a suicidal squirrel. If you can’t see and react to a cyclist travelling in the same direction, how are you going to react to a child running into the road from a blind spot? If you can’t you are not driving to the conditions of the environment and is thus careless driving. And yet nearly all drivers do this constantly, myself included from time to time, and I have to keep check of myself.
The theory “The others have
The theory “The others have to comply with the law and I will not do anything extra to get protected other than what the law requires” has many times been supported here, and I disagree with it. It reminds me the first Christians seeking to become martyrs in order to support their faith. I want to support my faith in cycling, but definitely don’t want to feel unsafe and risk being a martyr.
You must always protect yourself, anyway you can. If you feel unsafe cycling, try to find other solutions to transport yourself but always try to push for changes in order to upgrade cycling infrastructure.
Usually people respond to my views with the classic “OK then stay at home, it’s perfectly safe” but I think I do have a sense of what is safe over all given the benefits I get and what is not. In general I don’t believe I ride in too unsafe conditions, what actually scares me is that I may inhale too much motor vehicle exhaust fumes in some road segments, but on the other hand cycling is an important part of my total physical activity.
I do admit that I am the opposite of hi viz. I ride a black bike, black helmet and when chilly black jacket, usually in dark blue denim jeans. But I usually use roads with segretated bike infrastructure and with not great speed difference between motor traffic and bicycles like the one shown her. So I feel safe.
cyclisto wrote:
I also disagree with that particular sentiment, but I honestly don’t see much of it on this site. What I do see (which is what’s being said in the above comment) is that these “additional methods/protections” a) aren’t infallible, and b) should not be used to apportion blame to the victim.
People here that offer counterpoints to things like Hi-Vis and helmets probably wear Hi-Vis and helmets themselves. They’re just saying that blame should not be apportioned to a cyclist not wearing Hi-Vis, if they’re hit by a driver (who if they were driving within the law and to the conditions) should have been able to see them anyway. They’re saying that wearing Hi-Vis isn’t a sure-fire way of having these incidents never occur. They not saying don’t wear Hi-Vis.
My opinions on Hi-Vis are that it only helps draw your eye to a specific part of a “scene” that you’re already looking at, it doesn’t help if the driver isn’t looking. I personally don’t wear it because most of it is hot and uncomfortable, and I cycle with a bright top or backpack with an orange, reflective rain cover, I have reflective strips on the bike and kit, and I run solid and flashing lights at all times. If a driver can’t see that, then they aren’t looking, so Hi-Vis isn’t going to do anything.
Yesterday morning (about 8am,
Yesterday morning (about 8am, so good visibility), wearing my usual long sleeved hi-vis jacket, front facing Cateye AMPP500 turned on, white helmet on, cycling in the bus lane (signed for cyclists as well as buses) alongside the road.
Driver comes to the junction on a road on the left, looking to join the road I am on. I can see the driver looking at me. Stares directly at me. Starts to pull out anyway. I hit my brakes, the driver hits their brakes, but its okay they gave me a little “wave apology.” Didn’t lower my heart rate though.
Genuninely think they didn’t expect to see a cyclist, so they were focused on the cars beside me.
I will still always choose hi-vis clothing when cycling. It didn’t help this driver see me, but how many of the other drivers give me room simply because they have seen my hi-vis/lights? I’ll never know, but even one is worth it.
I looked for evidence that
I looked for evidence that lights and high Vis increase safety of cyclists more than other factors, and I actually couldn’t find any.
Of course it’s important to be seen and it makes sense that being visible will increase the chances of that happening, but the biggest factor in being seen is that somebody is actually looking.
If a driver expects there to be cyclists then they will be looking for them and will be more likely to see them. Drivers will look for cyclists if they think that cycling is something that people are likely to do on the road, and the people who expect this more than anybody else are cyclists.
So, the most important factor in increasing visibility of cyclists and cycle safety is in fact to get drivers onto bikes, even if it’s just some of the time.
I looked for evidence that
I looked for evidence that lights and high Vis increase safety of cyclists more than other factors, and I actually couldn’t find any.
Of course it’s important to be seen and it makes sense that being visible will increase the chances of that happening, but the biggest factor in being seen is that somebody is actually looking.
If a driver expects there to be cyclists then they will be looking for them and will be more likely to see them. Drivers will look for cyclists if they think that cycling is something that people are likely to do on the road, and the people who expect this more than anybody else are cyclists.
So, the most important factor in increasing visibility of cyclists and cycle safety is in fact to get drivers onto bikes, even if it’s just some of the time.
I can’t believe she is doing
I can’t believe she is doing this ride without hi-viz AND without bright flashing lights, especially on roads like this. She was not paying attention to the road ahead. She obviously didn’t see the car coming. If she had, she would have been well over to the left. She very nearly veered into the oncoming car. Hopefully she will have learnt a valuable lesson from this near miss.
The overtaking manoeuvre probably was dangerous but unfortunately that’s very common on this type of road in Scotland. The road/cycle lanes is dangerous by design. Organising a charity ride with an inexperienced cyclist and not insisting on hi Viz and lights is irresponsible. She has a front light, but it’s not switched on and it’s pointing at the sky!
She said “I’d argue the stupidity of the driver nearly cost me my life” I’d argue that ultimately her stupidity/ lack of attention / inexperience nearly cost her her life! Her own comments demonstrate her ignorance.
And what is Chris Boardman talking about? “protected by hi-viz.” She’s not wearing any hi-viz! ?
I hope you are being
I hope you are being sarcastic!
HLaB wrote:
If s/he isn’t, then this is victim blaming of the worse type. Not very good for a third post. One could almost wonder if they are trolling.
Victim blaming? Have you
Victim blaming? Have you watched it properly? Be real. She didn’t even see the car coming! She could, at least, pay attention to the road, even if she couldn’t be bothered to wear hi Viz or use lights! ?
I’m being realistic. Which
I’m being realistic. Which point/s do you not agree with? Anyone with experience of Scottish A-roads and common sense wouldn’t do this without hi Viz and flashing lights. I wouldn’t choose to do it and I’ve been cycling for 40 yrs.
All of it.
All of it.
This type of shite is what makes my blood boil. You’ve taken the fact that there was a car on the wrong side of the road travelling at high speeds narrowly avoiding a person on a bike in a cycling lane (on the opposite side of the road), passing within millimeters of her!
And with all that information, you have somehow managed to place the blame at the hands of the person on the bike.
The ONLY person at fault here, is the person behind the wheel of the car, and to suggest otherwise is everything wrong with the state of the roads today.
jkirkcaldy wrote:
See reply to Grumpy17. No
See reply to Grumpy17. No one seems to get that it makes no difference that the car was overtaking. It’s not the ‘”wrong side of the road'”. Overtaking is legal. It’s being called ‘dangerous’ here but it could have been a car travelling in the other direction and not many drivers would have stopped/ slowed down because there’s a cyclist in the cycle lane, not in the car lane. If it hasn’t been designed with enough passing space then it shouldn’t be there. She could have had 1.5m space if she had been paying attention!
Mars wrote:
It is at the very minimum careless driving: when the driver pulled out to commence the overtake she should have noted the cyclist in the oncoming cycle lane and aborted the manoeuvre and waited until all oncoming lanes were clear. What would she have done if the lorry had moved even fractionally to the right? She would’ve had no choice but to flatten the cyclist no matter what part of the lane she was using.
Doubling down on stupid.
Doubling down on stupid.
Yep, smells like a troll to me.
essexian wrote:
probably the driver of the red car in the video
It’s not an A-road, trolltwat
It’s not an A-road, trolltwat. It’s the B7076 just north of Moffat, and there’s a 6-lane motorway (the M74) right alongside if little Miss Murderously Self-Important in the red car wants to go fast and not have to overtake other traffic dangerously.
Thanks for the info
Thanks for the info Flaneurtwat but A or B, doesn’t matter does it?
A or B doesnt matter. Driver
A or B doesnt matter. Driver made a bad decision to overtake into oncoming traffic on the highway. This is ill advised whether an oncoming car or cycle. And when travelling at greater than 30mph 2m is required. The HC ststes drivers should pass cyclists slowly and allowing as much room as if passing another motor vehicle. The Driver Was At Fault. Hopefully this incident will lead to a successful prosecution.
I don’t like being without
I don’t like being without Viz myself – the letters section is incredible
That reminds me – I was out
That reminds me – I was out cycling the other day and passed a sign saying Caution – Mud on road. Cycled a bit further on and four blokes jumped out of the bushes singing ” The cat crept in”. Nearly scared me to death it did.
The swines.
The swines.
Actually that explains something that happened to me the other day. I was riding along (at an easy 27mph) when four blokes jumped out of a hedge just by Epsom Downs. I though they were going to mug me or attempt to steal my bike.
Instead they started singing about my shoes. Most disconcerting for a sensitive soul such as myself. I thought it was some sort of modern art installation or some fairly mature students from the Art College on rag week or something. Now it all makes sense…..
Well I for one really love
Well I for one really love those tiger feet.
perce wrote:
You really need to pay more attention to the signs. I was riding along peacefully with Mrs H in the Kent countryside the other day when we came across this sign reading “Caution Ahead, Slippery When Wet”. Fortunately as experienced riders we knew to immediately pull a U-turn and ride hard back towards civilisation, but even now it gives me chills to think how close we came to being exposed to mid-80s AOR soft metal.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Think of people Down Under in Australia, with a sign “Men At Work”, they must think “Who Can It Be Now?” every time.
Very lucky indeed. You were
Very lucky indeed. You were living on a prayer.
perce wrote:
It was Wild in the Streets that day, I can tell you.
Cyclists! Keep yourselves
Cyclists! Keep yourselves warm in winter by reading comments on the internet from people who say “as a cyclist myself…” or “if them fat blokes in lycra stopped swearing at children and almost hitting horses on the pavement riding three abreast way too fast holding everyone up at 11 miles per BLOODY HOUR through a red light people might want to run them over less LOLZ!”
Mars wrote:
You’ve been cycling Scottish A roads for 40 years and you haven’t noticed that it doesn’t matter what you wear because the drivers aren’t looking?
She was the one not looking.
She was the one not looking. Totally oblivious. ?. And yes, I have noticed, that’s why I’ve said I wouldn’t choose to do this ride, but if I were, I’d pay attention.
Label management, eh? We
Label management, eh? We booked youareallcyberbullies last week* but come the night Totally
ObviousOblivious showed up.Mind you, the crowd didn’t want to see them either…
* A typo, we’d actually meant to *ban* them
Mars wrote:
I suspect she saw the car in the distance but incorrectly thought nobody would be stupid enough to try to overtake a HGV that is already overtaking a cyclist while there is another cyclist coming the other way. It’s not an unreasonable opinion but unfortunately it was incorrect.
I’m surprised no one has
I’m surprised no one has mentioned invisible gorillas yet.
No, it was piss poor driving
No, it was piss poor driving that nearly cost the cyclist her life not her attire.
Exactly. She could have had
Exactly. She could have had an overlit christmas tree sticking out of her helmet, it wouldn’t have made any difference to the driver.
I didn’t say it was her
I didn’t say it was her attire.
Then you deserve an apology,
Then you deserve an apology, I thought that when you expressed surprise that she wasn’t wearing hi-viz that you were commenting on her attire or lack thereof. My mistake clearly…
You really are some kind
You really are some kind wayne kerr driver does a dangerous overtake that nearly results in a headon with not only a cyclist but another driver, yet you still try and blame the cyclist you really are a silly bunt!!!!
The cyclist did NOTHING WRONG
The cyclist did NOTHING WRONG. And yes, she would almost certainly have been killed if that car had hit her head on at that speed.
Editor:Could we have a follow up on this about whether the driver was traced by police? There can’t be any doubt that a prosecution is wholly justified in this case.
To quote McEnroe, “You can
To quote McEnroe, “You can not be serious”! Nothing wrong? Ha!
Please watch it again, closely. She took her attention off of the road, her hand off of the handlebars, just to wave to someone, wobbled, (as she admitted), nearly swerved out of the cycle lane into the oncoming car, which she was totally oblivious to. What more do you want? Oh yes, she couldn’t be bothered to make herself as visible as possible. It’s only because the car was oncoming and overtaking that you’re outraged. Its no different had the car been coming from behind, except she had the advantage of being able to see the car coming, if she had bothered to look. Before she wobbled and swerved, she probably had 1.5m of space, but you think it’s the car driver’s fault that she is not paying attention and can’t control her bike! That’s the point of 1.5m passing space, in case the cyclist wobbles, which she did, and therefore was not hit.
Frankly, if anyone should be prosecuted for careless ‘driving’, it should be her! She didn’t have a clue what was going on.
What more do we want?
What more do we want?
Do we have to spell it out for you (again)?
Mars wrote:
What does that even mean? It’s broad daylight. Would you be satisfied if she had an orange tabard instead of purple? A front light in daytime? A big metal cage around her?
No, it still would have been a horrendous close pass if the car had been going the other way on the correct side of the road.
It is different, because the driver is on the wrong side of the road. The cyclist would not expect such a dangerous maneuovre by the driver, and if you watch the clip in real time you’ll see that she had very little time to spot it.
Er, no. If you think that she moved 1.5m to her right, then I really would not want you to pass me when driving. If your misperception of distance/length extends to other areas, then I fear that your penis may be much smaller than you think it is.
You’ve taken the trolling a bit too far, there. You need to dial it back – less is sometimes more.
Not only that, but 1.5m is
Not only that, but 1.5m is the recommended minimum in the HC for speeds up to 30mph. The overtaking driver was clearly doing a LOT more than 30.
In the first few seconds of
In the first few seconds of film, which cyclist is much easier to see? The correct answer, in case you can’t admit to yourself, is the one in hi-vis. She had hi-vis in her basket, but perhaps thought her dark purple tabard was more appropriate.?
It was a “horrendous close pass” because she nearly swerved out of the cycle lane. She could have, and would have, moved to the left of the cycle lane had she being paying attention. Instead, she almost lost control of her bike and swerved into the car, with one hand on the handlebars. What do you not understand about the facts that are there to see with your own eyes? See frame taken from the film.
The driver is not on the “wrong side” of the road because they are overtaking. That’s usually accepted as the correct side of the road to overtake on. I never said the manoeuvre wasn’t dangerous. I’m pointing out what the cyclist did wrong. It’s a dangerous road, so she should expect cars overtaking. She said she was safely within the cycle lane. How the hell does that make her safe? Does that give her the right to not pay attention to the road and lose control of her bike? Of course not, and if you think otherwise you’re as big a fool as she clearly is.
If you watch the clip in real time, you’ll see that she did have time to see the car, if she hadn’t been looking at the other idiot waving at her when he had a truck about to pass him. The driver also had lights on.
I concede she didn’t have 1.5 m space. I meant that she could have had 1.5m if she had moved to the far left, perhaps a bit less. I know which side of the cycle lane I would have been on. Yes, the driver was too far over too, but remember, I’m talking about what she did wrong.
And yes, she was clearly being careless. Honestly, do you ride like that? Not looking at the road ahead, one handed, wobbling about on roads with fast traffic. If yes, good luck! ?.
The driver was on the wrong
The driver was on the wrong side of the road because they should not have been overtaking when there was a cyclist coming the other way. Even if the cyclist had been far over to the left, there was not sufficient space because the minimum distance is 1.5m at 30mph and the driver was driving well over 70mph.
Moreover, the theoretical position that the cyclist could have been in is irrelevant. It is where they actually are that matters. Personally, I would not have been cycling in the hard shoulder but in secondary position in the main carriageway. If the driver had come into my lane and hit me at 70+ mph would that have been my fault? Of course not.
The cyclist was clearly visible because it’s broad daylight. Hi-viz is irrelevant, and has been shown to make no difference to the rate at which cyclists are victims of close passes. The driver could undoubtedly see the cyclist, but didn’t care.
The cyclist wobbled, yes. So? She remained within her “lane” (hard shoulder) and it’s the driver who shouldn’t have been where they were, and certainly not at that speed. The road is dangerous because of the actions of the driver and others like them, not the cyclist.
Which cyclist is easier to
Which cyclist is easier to see? I’d plump for the one nearer the camera.
In the first few seconds of
In the first few seconds of film, which cyclist is much easier to see? The correct answer, in case you can’t admit to yourself, is the one in hi-vis. She had hi-vis in her basket, but perhaps thought her dark purple tabard was more appropriate.?
It was a “horrendous close pass” because she nearly swerved out of the cycle lane. She could have, and would have, moved to the left of the cycle lane had she being paying attention. Instead, she almost lost control of her bike and swerved into the car, with one hand on the handlebars. What do you not understand about the facts that are there to see with your own eyes? See frame taken from the film.
The driver is not on the “wrong side” of the road because they are overtaking. That’s usually accepted as the correct side of the road to overtake on. I never said the manoeuvre wasn’t dangerous. I’m pointing out what the cyclist did wrong. It’s a dangerous road, so she should expect cars overtaking. She said she was safely within the cycle lane. How the hell does that make her safe? Does that give her the right to not pay attention to the road and lose control of her bike? Of course not, and if you think otherwise you’re as big a fool as she clearly is.
If you watch the clip in real time, you’ll see that she did have time to see the car, if she hadn’t been looking at the other idiot waving at her when he had a truck about to pass him. The driver also had lights on.
I concede she didn’t have 1.5 m space. I meant that she could have had 1.5m if she had moved to the far left, perhaps a bit less. I know which side of the cycle lane I would have been on. Yes, the driver was too far over too, but remember, I’m talking about what she did wrong.
And yes, she was clearly being careless. Honestly, do you ride like that? Not looking at the road ahead, one handed, wobbling about on roads with fast traffic. If yes, good luck! ?.
Which cyclist is easier to
blah blah duplicate sorry
I ride a lot in the city on
I ride a lot in the city on roads with parked cars and I find that cars coming in the opposite direction on my side of the road while passing parked cars, are much more likely to pass closely than cars overtaking me.
I tend to ride in the centre of the lane when on narrow roads and I find myself often squeezed over to the left by vehicles who should in fact be giving way to me. The fact is that they know they can drive directly at me and I will be forced out of the way because if I don’t move I will be killed. The other day I was forced off the road entirely.
Drivers. If you should be giving way to a car then you should also be giving way to a cyclist.
Ride primary, get a camera
Ride primary, get a camera and report them. It hasn’t happened to me since this incident. Anecdotal I know.
https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-833-oncoming-driver-forces-cyclist-swerve-297295
https://road.cc/content/news
https://road.cc/content/news/99660-high-vis-clothing-doesnt-make-cars-pass-you-more-safely-says-new-study
if only Road CC had published an article describing proper academic research proving the hi-viz fallacy
It is pretty clear neither
It is pretty clear neither you nor Boardman have ever had any training on industrial safety.
The ‘protected by high viz’ shows that like most of the general public you/Boardman don’t comprehend the layered approach to safety.
Hi viz is a single safety layer intended to aid situational awareness. (If it was the fallacy as you claim we wouldn’t deploy it successfully on hazardous industrial sites).
However if operators in the Hazzard location are not practicing appropriate scanning of the environment, then the high viz safety layer is negated. That was clearly the situation with that driver.
Not industrial safety but
Not industrial safety but surgical safety definitely yes. And we’ve looked at the Prospect model, from industry. But we wouldn’t use a method that had no evidence base, particularly one where there was negative evidence, such as that for hi-viz in cycling safety.
Bradshsi wrote:
However if operators in the Hazzard location………— Bradshsi Not sure I trust the postings of someone apparently claiming qualifications in H&S when they can’t even spell hazard.
What you seem to be saying is that it doesn’t matter that hi-viz doesn’t work because your manual says that it does. Never mind reality, just follow the book.
Bradshsi wrote:
I don’t want to see any driving like this, which was apparently common in the HAZZARD location
Dr Walker did a study
Dr Walker did a study observing motorists interactions with cyclists in various attire and concluded that there was very little difference in the space given during passes. I’ve attached an image below of the clothing worn. Personally I know where my eye is drawn to and am interested if others have the same reaction.
There is now such a plethora of HiViz on the streets today that our brains pretty much phase it out. Fluorescent colours are well and good except in some environments they blend into the background and become camouflage. I’ve found bright colours or contrasting colours work best and in this particular instance purple has been a good call for visibility.
Drivers with over 20 years behind them will never have done the HPT and even those who have done so rarely implement those practices. Until drivers proactively observe while driving then our roads will never be safe. It’s really not difficult to look further up the road and make decisions based on what we see.
Yes the cyclist could have been into the left more but that lane looks absolutely rubbish to be on. Even moving into the left still means the driver was still within the recommended 2.0m at speed. They quite simply should have held back.
I’ve also attatched an old clip. I’m wearing a bright yellow rain cape on this occasion and the driver still makes contact.
https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng
HiViv like helmets is a red herring to road safety and is the easy way out but it in no way reduces the instances of collisions and near misses.
Plain blue, extreme left is
Plain blue, extreme left is most visible.
Yep. That’s the one.
Yep. That’s the one.
Just a normal day out on UK
Just a normal day out on UK roads on a bicycle. Toxic drivers are the majority. Policing not allocated or trained for this, CPS goes for slapped wrists, Judges and juries all drivers. There is no ‘war on motorists’, it’s ‘carnage from drivers’. This behaviour is way past out-of-control; it’s a widespread mental illness.
Just a normal day out on UK
Just a normal day out on UK roads on a bicycle. Toxic drivers are the majority. Policing not allocated or trained for this, CPS goes for slapped wrists, Judges and juries all drivers. There is no ‘war on motorists’, it’s ‘carnage from drivers’. This behaviour is way past out-of-control; it’s a widespread mental illness.
polainm wrote:
Its long been understood that the best method for psychiatrists to employ in getting to see the deeper mental states of humans is to put them in a car then observe them as they “drive” in traffic. The many aspects of their particular human nature variant will emerge, good, bad and indifferent.
As the population goes gradually mad due to the pressures and privations of our slowly disintegrating pseudo-society, more and more of them are becoming “troubled” with a fair percentage well along that road to full-barmpot status, including “dangerous nutter”.
Personally I will no longer get in a car with many I know, these days. I’ve become over-sensitive (or just sensitive) to their incompetance and inability to recognise just how incompetant they are …. with the many possible consequences for themselves, me (the passenger) and who-knows-who unlucky enough to cross their path at the wrong time.
It’s astonishing how many fail to look where they’re going for long periods; fail to anticipate obvious hazards ahead; have no understanding of basic physics and its relevance to driving. Many are madly aggressive, rude, inconsiderate … yet convinced they are “right” in some queer imaginary contest of who has precedence and how to get it from those would-be (but lesser-human) usurpers outside their windscreen.
Mention or even hint at their lack of competance and there’s an explosion of self-righteous indignation, claims to be a much better driver than everyone else and a long huff of, “You’ve badly hurt my feelings and I hate you”.
So I stay out of their cars. I explain that, amongst other benefits, this will mean I won’t be a witness agin’ ’em when they inevitably have their next “accident”. More huffery and puffery ensues.
Some friend, me, eh? How very dare I not go along with their kings&queens-of-the-road schtick!! No wonder I yam Cugel-no-mates. 🙂
Can totally relate to that,
Can totally relate to that, had many a fall out with close relatives after attempting to explain to them their bad driving habits. I’m not going to lie, I was probably similar not long ago, putting priority on getting to where I needed to be on time above everything else but since being on this site it has given me a better understanding on being a much less selfish driver. The hard part is convincing others to do the same.
I’m Dutch. I grew up on a
I’m Dutch. I grew up on a bike in a country where everyone cycles and motorists keep an eye out for cyclists and vice versa. I dread cycling in the UK as motorists aren’t trained to look out for cyclists and cyclists act like they have every right to be on a busy road. Which they do (most of the time).
One thing you should never forget as a cyclist though is that you are the most vulnerable thing on the road. God forbid you have an accident, but if you do, you can be entirely in the right but still be the one ending up in hospital because the other person was nicely protected in a car.
As for Lady Whatsherface, this kind of feels like she was doing it for effect. Look at how far, I’d say extremely, to the right she is on what is by all accounts a very generous bike lane (for lack of a better word). Maybe drifting to the right because she took her hand off the handlebar? Either way, it’s just asking for an accident to happen. Stay clear from other traffic as far you can, other road users might not be as responsible as you are.
FFS
FFS
Flybat wrote:
I swear some people would say it’s your fault for not taking all the precautions possible if you were hit by a car that drove through your front window while you were quietly sitting at home waiting for the road.cc website to load. The driver was overtaking at high speed in the oncoming traffic lane inches off the edge of the cycle lane and it’s the cyclist’s fault they had a near miss (which in this case should be titled a near death experience) because they didn’t stay as far away from it as they could have done?
I’d say that quote is just
I’d say that quote is just common sense and doesn’t really apply to living room situations or ram raids and the like. Look at the first still, she’s practically making a hard right at that point.
But seriously, apart from the larger cities with their cycle (super)highways, the UK has a massive infrastructure problem when it comes to cycling, in addition to terrible mentality on both sides (yes, cyclists too, refer to the comment sections on here). And who in their right mind would cycle down that road to begin with? As the video shows, it’s not very safe at all..
Flybat wrote:
It’s always easy to take a side. One then has the power of a small mob to enhance one’s own. Of course, the other side also has mob-power.
Our Bwitish tradition is the half-arsed dialetic often found in opposing mobs. We do the thesis and antithesis but never seem to get to to the synthesis of a resolution or compromise between the two groups of red-faced hollerers. They just keep at it, louder and louder. Then they pick up their pitchforks and burning brands ….. .
**********
The overtaking car loon in that vid is a dangerous incompetant. The cyclist, going by the vid, is also incompetnt but, of herself, not dangerous except to car loon P&Js, which might get a scratch or a dent. So too is the designer of that road with a cycling murder strip perfect for bringing speeding car loons and inept cyclists into close proximity. Will any of them attempt a synthesis?
It seems unlikely. The car loon will find 20 reasons for doing what they did, along with 20,000 other car loons in the car loon mob to bray support. The road designer will “design” some more just as bad, if not worse. The cyclist will remain inept and oblivious to all sorts of dangers that are unfairly imposed on cyclists but nevertheless a reality that has to be dealt with in an immediate and practical way, including not just “avoid them” but “anticipate them and have skills to mitigate their effects”.
In short, humans can be very stupid and many seem determined to remain in that state.
No. The road is safe. The
No. The road is safe. The overtaking motorist made it dangerous. They weren’t happy to sit behind a lorry at 40 mph who was overtaking another road user and were totally fixated on getting past.
Doing it for effect? What a
Doing it for effect? What a silly thing to say, you sound like another driver apologist. Actually, reading your last paragraph would suggest you are a returnee to this site.
Yes it was a silly thing to
Yes it was a silly thing to say and the car driver was 100% at fault, but I hope that my children do not cycle in the manner she does on dangerous, high-speed roads.
On another point, since when was black and dark purple, “Hi-viz”?
“Please motorists – be
“Please motorists – be careful when overtaking on country roads.”
All roads surely?
“That wave almost cost you your life.”
I know we are all human and it’s common to deny things when in your interest, but the motorisation of society has gone too far when otherwise logical people can make such clearly fallacious statements. The fault was the driver’s and no-one else’s, but we have become so conditioned by the perception that the roads are for motorists alone, that many people simply cannot conceive that a driver is at fault when a cyclist is involved. This view, reinforced by a media so biased that it would be at home in North Korea, is endemic. No wonder that tories are shamelessly promoting themselves as the party of drivers.
If you want to be depressed,
If you want to be depressed, read the comments on the Daily Hate page on this event. Most of the comments seem to think she was in the wrong.
If you want to be depressed,
If you want to be depressed, read the comments on the Daily Hate page on this event. Most of the comments seem to think she was in the wrong.
OldRidgeback wrote:
To be fair, if a person is looking for reliable reporting and ends up reading the Daily Heil, then they’re not exactly in touch with reality.
There is a reason it is not
There is a reason it is not allowed to be quoted as fact on Wikipedia.
I’ve been away for a week,
I’ve been away for a week, and this is the first topic I looked into. I can instantly identify 2 or 3 Utter Nutters, one a classic retread on a ‘first post’. If the Old-Timers would simply Note and Ignore, these topics would be a lot shorter. As for references to the Hyper-Junk Press’s Most Junk Aspect (the sub-primate comments)- why bother? It’s simple- the cyclist is completely in the right, the driver is guilty, the police will do nothing because that’s what they do about offences against cyclists.
I’ve cycled a bit around
I’ve cycled a bit around France (where I live). We have the same type of high-speed roads in the countryside, you do not enjoy cycling on these roads, you survive them. Unfortunately you cannot always avoid them, when I have to cycle them I have one eye continuously in the mirror playing and changing my position on the road so that the cars behind give me the maximum space when overtaking. What I don’t do is wave at other cyclists totally unaware of what is happening around me. What happened to this woman happened to me a few years back, I saved my life by immediately throughing myself and my bike into a ditch. It also happened to be the rare occasion I rode in the UK.
The video shows her lacking
The video shows her lacking proper control of her bike, due to waving to the other cyclist, causing her to wobble towards the vehicle overtaking the truck.
… I think she shows amazing
… I think she shows amazing timing – she literally had to time that perfectly to be inches from the car approaching at maybe 70mph closing speed and still avoid a collision. What a skilled stunt team!
What she demonstated was
What she demonstated was cluelessness; she should have moved left, if she had observed the overtaking vehicle heading towards her, rather than waving to another cyclist like she’s riding on a quiet bike path, instead of a high speed road.
What she demonstated was
What she demonstated was helplessness; she should have moved east*, if she (or the organisers) had observed the overtaking habits of British motorists. Unfortunately riding across the UK on quiet bike *paths* is impossible as they don’t exist. And “quiet bike route” in the UK has considerable overlap with “High speed road”. Of course – it’s not the road going fast, it’s the drivers.
None of this detracts from the inability of UK drivers to make safe overtakes. Lots of us demonstrate what is known as restlessness (must get in front no matter what, right now) and blindness (to anything further than the next motor vehicle, or indeed anything other than motor vehicles…)
* either a couple of hundred miles (NL from Scotland) or a few hundred more again (Denmark). Germany has more places which are better than the UK but is still AFAIK firmly in the 3rd class category with us. Of course much of the UK is “hasn’t even started” and now the PM says he wants to go backwards.
A B-Road is not a high speed
A B-Road is not a high speed road. Personally I drop my speed to 40/50 when driving these roads.
*edit – as a motorist you should not commit to a manoeuvre that would cause another road user to brake or take evasive action.
This comment show’s how bad
This comment show’s how bad your understanding is of the high way code and what constituates safe driving near vulnerable road users. A load of victim blaming tosh from a moronic waste of space!
Just want to point out that
Just want to point out that the article refers to a hard shoulder, not a cyle lane.