Queue behind cyclist sparks debate about letting drivers past; Sir Chris Hoy's "very private" wasp sting; UK Grand Depart; Hi-vis handouts part of road safety campaign; Close pass op; Steep climbs; Tour of Britain summit finish + more on the live blog

hirsute wrote:

No true cyclist would write 'peddled'. You could argue either way that he should have stopped but stopping requires the ability to start again. May not be so straight forward on a hilly, busy road. Many drivers can't overtake anyway due to lack of skill.

I see "peddled" more often than "pedaled" or "pedalled" on cycling forums and FB groups.

Not everyone is a grate spellar.

Captain Badger wrote:

Quote:

This cyclist peddled along slowly, oblivious to c30 vehicles behind him

That would indeed be quite remarkable. How strange that their photo shows c3 vehicles in the queue. I would have thought they'd be only too eager to show the true scale of the carnage. Unless of course they did...

Good lord, Cap'n: you don't mean that you think maybe, just maybe, they were exaggerating the situation?

brooksby wrote:

Good lord, Cap'n: you don't mean that you think maybe, just maybe, they were exaggerating the situation?

I'm appalled at your totally unjustified cynicism; everyone knows drivers alway tell the truth, never break the law and are unfailingly courteous to other road users, especially cyclists.

Their spelling, however, leaves much to be desired.

brooksby wrote:

Good lord, Cap'n: you don't mean that you think maybe, just maybe, they were exaggerating the situation?

eburtthebike wrote:

..I'm appalled at your totally unjustified cynicism; everyone knows drivers alway tell the truth, never break the law and are unfailingly courteous to other road users, especially cyclists.

Now you put it like that, I don't know what came over me.

I feel a bit stupid now.....

Captain Badger wrote:

..I'm appalled at your totally unjustified cynicism; everyone knows drivers alway tell the truth, never break the law and are unfailingly courteous to other road users, especially cyclists.

Now you put it like that, I don't know what came over me.

I feel a bit stupid now.....

[/quote]

Go and spread TB to a few cattle, you'll feel better.

eburtthebike wrote:

....Go and spread TB to a few cattle, you'll feel better.

Yeah, maybe I'll have more success than with that bloody alpaca.....

Sure, the other c27 could be in his rear view mirror.

Before I had built up a queue of 30 vehicles, on an otherwise empty road, I would pull over where safe. Somehow I doubt that is the case here - queues 30 cars long don't happen on empty roads.

Far more likely the traffic is that heavy that 30 seconds after pulling over to let one lot by, the cyclist finds another 30 behind them.

Equally likely the queue was already building up behind the lorry long before it reached the bike, and would remain so if the cyclist pulled over.

The notion that the cyclist blithely collected a queue of 30 vehicles on an otherwise open and free flowing road is fanciful. In other words, it's not the solitary cyclist that is the problem here.

The problem is that there are too many motor vehicles. But classic motorist perception, the traffic is caused by the single cyclist. Think how much worse it could be - if they were all on bikes!

Long line of slow moving traffic on my ride home. Nobody moved over to let me pass. Turns out part of the problem (other than too many cars) was a broken down mini. Unbelievably, the driver was stood by the car making no effort to push the car up the road to a point where it could be parked up out of the way.

IanMK wrote:

Long line of slow moving traffic on my ride home. Nobody moved over to let me pass. Turns out part of the problem (other than too many cars) was a broken down mini. Unbelievably, the driver was stood by the car making no effort to push the car up the road to a point where it could be parked up out of the way.

I've had several instances of broken down cars where the motorist will ask me, a cyclist, for help while all the other drivers go blithely on their way, watching me and him pushing the car.

eburtthebike wrote:

I've had several instances of broken down cars where the motorist will ask me, a cyclist, for help while all the other drivers go blithely on their way, watching me and him pushing the car.

I've had pedestrians stop me (OK, twice) to ask for directions.

This has come up before - bicycles don't count as a vehicle for this particular situation.

(edit : see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/24/made)

tbh, the driver should have overtaken ages before ! No wonder people claim cyclists hold up traffic - it's drivers who can't overtake that contribute a lot to the problem.

Fair enough (your point, I mean - not the fact that it doesn't include bicycles - that's just... dumb).

I'd suggest that it's still not 'textbook' though because

• [pedantic reason] the 'textbook' is the Highway Code, and that doesn't make any exception for bicycles, even if that's not accurately reflecting the underlying law.
• [non-pedantic reason] there are good reasons for not overtaking on the approach to a crossing that still apply to bicycles, so even if it's not specifically illegal, it's still not good driving practice, so doesn't qualify as 'textbook' in the more common use sense of the term.

mdavidford wrote:

Erm, not sure that's an entirely textbook pass.

Highway Code wrote:

Rule 165

You MUST NOT ... overtake the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing...

Rule 191

You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing...

Granted there was no particular danger caused in this case, but still...

[Yes, if you're being extra picky they didn't come alongside the bicycle until after they'd gone through the crossing, but they started the overtake before it. And to be extra extra picky, it doesn't say nearest in which direction...]

Yes, those are the HC rules, but the law says overtake a motor vehicle; trust me, I've checked.  A driver dangerously overtook me at a zebra, reported it, had video, police were sympathetic but could do nothing because the law doesn't include overtaking cyclists at pedestrian crossings.

Doubtless this anomaly will also be addressed in the review of road law.

Except as I always highlight on this point, they could have gone for due care & attention charge as it's at least inconsiderate driving as a careful & competent driver wouldnt overtake anything on a zebra crossing. They simply have to demonstrate there was no reasonable consideration for other people/road users.

eburtthebike wrote:

Doubtless this anomaly will also be addressed in the review of road law.

What was that, now?  Fifteen years ago...?

brooksby wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Doubtless this anomaly will also be addressed in the review of road law.

What was that, now?  Fifteen years ago...?

Something like that; lost in the mists of time.  Still, they managed to get the dangerous cycling law passed, so that's ok.

Indeed, the police should be congratulated for discovering and acting upon the solution to the dangers identified in survey after survey:

The charity's poll of 2,024 adults, conducted by YouGov, found that poor road conditions was the joint second most common reason for avoiding travel by bike, alongside drivers overtaking too closely.

Other concerns include threatening behaviour from drivers (43 per cent), car doors being opened in front of them (40 per cent) and speeding motorists (37 per cent).

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/potholes-put-more-than-half-of-people...

Perhaps the police could repeat the survey after the hi-viz vests have been tried on by the participants to see if it helps.

Im just highlighting the people who come up with such ideas about handing out hiviz vests and promoting hashtags on twitter as a form of taking visible action, arent the people who knock on doors at night to inform families a close relative or someone dear to them has been killed or seriously hurt in a traffic collision.

eburtthebike wrote:

Since the effect of hi-viz is proven to be rather less than dramatic, I'm concerned that Warwickshire police haven't looked at the evidence, rather worrying from the police, and have just organised a knee-jerk reaction to the symptoms, not the cause.

Depends what the purpose of handing it out is supposed to be.

Quote:

The force says it will be handing out hi-vis tabards and other hi-vis items carrying the 'Let's Share The Space' branding...

It looks like it's at least as much about generating some advertising for the campaign as it is about any expectation of directly improving safety.

mdavidford wrote:

It looks like it's at least as much about generating some advertising for the campaign as it is about any expectation of directly improving safety.

I was about the make the same point.  It seems that the HiViz is to advertise the message rather than stigmatise the wearers, so in this context it makes a kind of sense.

Maybe they text on the back should just say "Polite" rather than a sentence you have to be tailgated to read?

I do find it interesting that the picture featuring quite a visible cyclist, shows in the reduced pic for the tweet, shows 3 motor vehicles, a dark green mini, a black hatchback and something grey.

The expanded picture does have a white flatbed and a red car about to pass the very visible cyclist.