“Many roads weren’t built for cars”: Liability expert slams “empty-headed” anti-cycling hypocrisy after driver with “observational skills of a garden gnome” doors cyclist… but motorists fixate on ‘illegal e-bike’; New Pidcock plans + more on the live blog

God bless Big Jobber.

The content creator, who reviews dashcam clips of road collisions and helpfully explains liability to the internet, has earned plaudits within the cycling community thanks to his refreshingly balanced take on bike-related incidents, along with his unerring ability to correct confused or malicious motorists in the comments.

And this week, he’s really taking no prisoners. Commentating on a clip of a rider being ‘doored’ by a driver on a narrow residential street, Big Jobber took the opportunity to call out the “anti-cycling brigade” who enjoy nothing more than shifting the road safety goalposts when it comes to people on bikes.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Jobber (@itsbigjobber)

“This cyclist is doored by a car driver with the observational skills of a garden gnome. Who will be at fault for this collision if there are any claims made for damages or injuries? Well, obviously it will be the car driver,” Big Jobber started the video, in typically succinct fashion. Lovely jubbly.

The content creator then pointed out that it’s a driver’s “legal duty” to ensure it’s safe to open their door, in case a motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian is passing, while the Highway Code recommends the use of the Dutch Reach technique or blind spot mirrors to avoid nasty collisions like the one in the clip.

And this is where Big Jobber turned on the moaning motorists that tend to proliferate in his comments section.

“I do know that some bungalows and empty heads will come along to say that a cyclist shouldn’t be so close to a car driver’s door. However, you can clearly see that they’re trying to make room for the car that’s approaching in the opposite direction,” he said.

“And it’s funny that you’d want them to be riding further out into the road, because normally you would be saying that you’d want them closer to the edge of the road so you can pass them.

“It’s funny how the anti-cycling brigade will completely change their arguments depending on the situation that they’re analysing.

“Like, for example, when a car turns left into a junction across a cycle lane and collides with an established cyclist who’s in that cycle lane, all of a sudden you’ll get them saying that cyclists shouldn’t be passing cars on their near side in a cycle lane and that they should move out into the road. Even though their usual argument is ‘get out of the road and get into a cycle lane’.”

> Most drivers wrongly believe cyclists must ride single file, stay close to the kerb, and use cycle lanes – and one in three say they shouldn’t have equal rights on the road, new Highway Code survey finds

He continued: “Obviously yes, where possible, cyclists and car drivers should be outside the swing of a car door. But this is the UK. Many of our shared use roads were built for cyclists and horse riders only, not for motor vehicle drivers. But motor vehicle drivers were graciously allowed to use the roads that were designed for the cyclists and the horse riders.

“And that means you’re not always able to be away from the swing of a car door when you’re driving down a road, because a lot of our roads are narrow. And if you have the emptiest of empty heads, you would ask why the cyclist doesn’t have to be 1.5 metres away from a motor vehicle whilst passing it, but a motor vehicle has to be 1.5m away from a cyclist when passing it.

“That is because a bicycle is a few inches wide and a rider of a bicycle is not going to have difficulty in understanding the width of their bicycle or the awareness of their surroundings. As we see on the roads every day, many car drivers have issues with the width of their vehicle and awareness of their surroundings.”

> “Wouldn’t happen if he stayed on the pavement”: Driver at fault for ‘dooring’ cyclist, says liability expert – but confused motorists say “it’s time cyclists took responsibility for their own actions”

Can’t argue with that. And one more time, for the ‘dangerous cycling’ crowd in the back.

“Vehicles drivers cause millions of pounds of property and injury damage every day and cause a major incident on the roads every 15 to 30 minutes,” he concluded. “Cyclists as a whole on any given day will not even cause hundreds of pounds worth of damage. And they cause a major incident, on average, once every three to six years.

“And yes, that’s also why vehicle drivers need mandatory insurance and cyclists do not. Lovely jubbly, sound as a pound.”

Lovely jubbly, indeed. I reckon that speech needs to be preserved in a road safety museum, cracking stuff.

Unsurprisingly, Big Jobber’s ‘Address to Hypocritical Motorists’ (or at least that’s what I’m calling it) didn’t go down too well with some sensitive souls in the comments, who accused him of spreading the good word by “being rude to car drivers”.

Even more unsurprisingly – and just as he predicted – a few commenters also did their best to shift those plastic, collapsable, Diana Ross-approved road safety goalposts by doing their utmost to absolve the dooring driver of any responsibility.

“So, as it appears to be an illegal bike, and if it is, then it shouldn’t be on the road, so, is the driver still at fault?” asked one commenter, kicking off a pretty intense, heated exchange.

“If it was a car, and said car didn’t have insurance or an MOT, it would still be the fault of the parked car driver?”

“How can you tell if it was illegal or legal? The rider could have been freewheeling. Your ‘appears’ and ‘if’ are doing a whole world of heavy lifting in your post,” replied another.

“Making baseless assumptions things like this are what many drivers/non cyclists do to anyone on a bike: cyclists all go through red lights, should have number plates, pay road tax etc.”

The build-up to Tom Pidcock’s first Tour de France in Pinarello Q36.5 colours isn’t going exactly to plan, following this morning’s news that the British star will miss this week’s Tour de Suisse after picking up a mild viral infection.

Pidcock was set to lead the team at the five-day stage race, which starts tomorrow, but after missing a few days of altitude training thanks to the infection, a decision was made to amend the 26-year-old’s pre-Tour programme.

“Following a small number of missed training days at the team’s altitude training camp in in Sierra Nevada due to contracting a mild viral infection, the Pinarello Q36.5 Pro Cycling Team has decided to amend Tom Pidcock’s June race programme to allow for additional recovery and training time,” the team said in a statement this morning.

Instead of the Tour de Suisse, Pidcock will now, “health permitting”, take part in the Andorra MoraBanc Classica one-day on 21 June.

That means since finishing second at Eschborn-Frankfurt on 1 May, Pidcock will have raced just one day on the road in the two months leading up to this year’s Tour, after spending the end of May on his mountain bike. His last competitive outing was at the UCI Mountain Bike World Cup in Nové Město, Czech Republic, on 24 May, where he won the cross-country Olympic event and placed second in the short track.

“While disappointed to miss the Team’s home race, Tom has returned home to Andorra where he will continue to train and is now very much looking forward to competing on his adopted home roads around the mountains of Andorra. Further updates will be provided in due course,” Pinarello-Q36.5 said this morning.

This year’s Tour will mark the Swiss team’s debut at cycling’s biggest race, after wildcard entries to the Giro and Vuelta last year, with Pidcock finishing on the podium at the Spanish grand tour.

Pidcock, now in his second season at the squad following his high-profile move from Ineos, enjoyed a successful spring campaign, winning Milano-Torino, along with stages at the Ruta del Sol and Tour of the Alps, while also narrowly missing out on a first monument win to Tadej Pogačar in a thrilling edition of Milan-Sanremo.

> “There wasn’t a real danger to cyclists”: New cycle lane making road riskier than ever, locals say amid claims money could have been spent on “something more important”