Video: Motorist hits cyclist while attempting to squeeze past on busy A-road

alansmurphy wrote:

Whilst I would certainly have taken the lane, I cannot disagree more with this. If you are suggesting we all move left every time a junction widens then surely we are encouraging piss poor driving and endangering ourselves when we come back together.

Taking the lane would have been better .... if there is insufficient room to pass, then not creating an opportunity for someone to excercise poor judgment is the safest thing to do. However, it does nothing to appease other road users that are being held up.

I would also add that moving to the left to let others past would not only prevent piss poor driving resulting from poor judgment, but you would also be taking responsibility for your own safety when merging back in to the flow of traffic. I would much prefer to take responsibility for my own safety than leave it to others.

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Whilst I would certainly have taken the lane, I cannot disagree more with this. If you are suggesting we all move left every time a junction widens then surely we are encouraging piss poor driving and endangering ourselves when we come back together.

Taking the lane would have been better .... if there is insufficient room to pass, then not creating an opportunity for someone to excercise poor judgment is the safest thing to do. However, it does nothing to appease other road users that are being held up.

I would also add that moving to the left to let others past would not only prevent piss poor driving resulting from poor judgment, but you would also be taking responsibility for your own safety when merging back in to the flow of traffic. I would much prefer to take responsibility for my own safety than leave it to others.

You maybe let 3 cars in front of you by doing that. It's bumper-to-bumper - nobody's going anywhere. Then

1. You have to merge back in. Queuing drivers love cyclists coming from nowhere and filtering back in. You have to appeal to a queuing driver to let you back onto a bit of road that you had.

2. You're in exactly the same situation as you were - you just replace one queuing driver behind you with another.

If I'm genuinely holding up traffic, I have no issue with pulling to the left/waving traffic past. But in this situation, the one we're talking about, where are the MGIFers going to go? Chances are you'll be filtering past them soon anyway, and all you've done is reinforce the views of the drivers who've seen you pull out of the way that cyclists should defer to motons.

davel wrote:

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Whilst I would certainly have taken the lane, I cannot disagree more with this. If you are suggesting we all move left every time a junction widens then surely we are encouraging piss poor driving and endangering ourselves when we come back together.

Taking the lane would have been better .... if there is insufficient room to pass, then not creating an opportunity for someone to excercise poor judgment is the safest thing to do. However, it does nothing to appease other road users that are being held up.

I would also add that moving to the left to let others past would not only prevent piss poor driving resulting from poor judgment, but you would also be taking responsibility for your own safety when merging back in to the flow of traffic. I would much prefer to take responsibility for my own safety than leave it to others.

You maybe let 3 cars in front of you by doing that. It's bumper-to-bumper - nobody's going anywhere. Then

1. You have to merge back in. Queuing drivers love cyclists coming from nowhere and filtering back in. You have to appeal to a queuing driver to let you back onto a bit of road that you had.

2. You're in exactly the same situation as you were - you just replace one queuing driver behind you with another.

If I'm genuinely holding up traffic, I have no issue with pulling to the left/waving traffic past. But in this situation, the one we're talking about, where are the MGIFers going to go? Chances are you'll be filtering past them soon anyway, and all you've done is reinforce the views of the drivers who've seen you pull out of the way that cyclists should defer to motons.

You're right, just use your judgment for each situation and do what is most appropriate. I never suggested ALWAYS moving to the left.

nbrus wrote:

The solution that works best is that the slow moving vehicle pulls in to a layby to let the other traffic past and everyone feels grateful for their thoughtfulness.

So if, as frequently happens to me and looks like it's going to happen shortly after this point, the cyclist finds himself approaching a tailback of motor vehicles selfishly hogging the lane, are you suggesting that they all pull courteously into the side to allow the faster cyclist to steam through?  Or perhaps the behaviour that you're describing is impractical in denser traffic.

nbrus wrote:

While I am not saying the cyclist did anything wrong ...

Well..... you kinda are really aren't you?  If I punch you in the mouth and people say "it was obviously the aggressor's fault, but nbrus could have avoided it by handing over his wallet and anyway, everyone knows that if you go into that part of the town you'll get mugged"... then they are blaming you aren't they?    "Legally nbrus is blameless... but really... wearing that short a skirt ...."   It's a form of argumentation known as apophasis ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apophasis ).

nbrus wrote:

the car driver was clearly at fault ... they could have easily avoided this accident by either moving out of the lane by a couple of feet to let the traffic they were holding up past (there was space at the junction where the car driver clearly thought she had her best oportunity to sneak past), or they could have cycled in the coned off lane (a makeshift segregated bike lane?) where they were safer and weren't holding up traffic ... yes I know this is wrong, but it would have been safer and the held up traffic would have been grateful for the consideration shown.

What?!  The at-fault car-driver should have cycled in the coned-off lane?!!  Oh... no.. I see what you are suggesting:  the not-at-fault cyclist should have sneaked into the gutter because cones around a traffic lane NEVER suggest that the lane is closed because it has something wrong with it.   Interesting.  

nbrus wrote:

Alternatively, the cyclist could have 'taken the lane' to prevent other traffic from sneaking past, and likely would have resulted in some abuse as being stuck being slow moving vehicles with little chance for overtaking is a real pain in the ass, particularly if you are in a hurry. This just leads to aggression and accidents, particulary when the slow moving vehcle (cyclist) has an opportunity to let other traffic past, but chooses not to take it.

You know, I occupy primary whenever I judge it to be safer... I have rarely had abuse.  The only times I have been in what I felt to be dangerous situations was when I did not do so.  

nbrus wrote:

What we really need is more segregated bike lanes,

No.  We need an entire shift away from the normalisation of motorvehicle transport and an extensive, connected network of bikelanes with the motorvehicles segregated onto a restricted, expensive network.   A few more segregated bike lanes are not going to solve anything.

nbrus wrote:

but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.

The sanctimony of this speaks for itself.

Ush wrote:

nbrus wrote:

The solution that works best is that the slow moving vehicle pulls in to a layby to let the other traffic past and everyone feels grateful for their thoughtfulness.

So if, as frequently happens to me and looks like it's going to happen shortly after this point, the cyclist finds himself approaching a tailback of motor vehicles selfishly hogging the lane, are you suggesting that they all pull courteously into the side to allow the faster cyclist to steam through?  Or perhaps the behaviour that you're describing is impractical in denser traffic.

nbrus wrote:

While I am not saying the cyclist did anything wrong ...

Well..... you kinda are really aren't you?  If I punch you in the mouth and people say "it was obviously the aggressor's fault, but nbrus could have avoided it by handing over his wallet and anyway, everyone knows that if you go into that part of the town you'll get mugged"... then they are blaming you aren't they?    "Legally nbrus is blameless... but really... wearing that short a skirt ...."   It's a form of argumentation known as apophasis ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apophasis ).

nbrus wrote:

the car driver was clearly at fault ... they could have easily avoided this accident by either moving out of the lane by a couple of feet to let the traffic they were holding up past (there was space at the junction where the car driver clearly thought she had her best oportunity to sneak past), or they could have cycled in the coned off lane (a makeshift segregated bike lane?) where they were safer and weren't holding up traffic ... yes I know this is wrong, but it would have been safer and the held up traffic would have been grateful for the consideration shown.

What?!  The at-fault car-driver should have cycled in the coned-off lane?!!  Oh... no.. I see what you are suggesting:  the not-at-fault cyclist should have sneaked into the gutter because cones around a traffic lane NEVER suggest that the lane is closed because it has something wrong with it.   Interesting.  

nbrus wrote:

Alternatively, the cyclist could have 'taken the lane' to prevent other traffic from sneaking past, and likely would have resulted in some abuse as being stuck being slow moving vehicles with little chance for overtaking is a real pain in the ass, particularly if you are in a hurry. This just leads to aggression and accidents, particulary when the slow moving vehcle (cyclist) has an opportunity to let other traffic past, but chooses not to take it.

You know, I occupy primary whenever I judge it to be safer... I have rarely had abuse.  The only times I have been in what I felt to be dangerous situations was when I did not do so.  

nbrus wrote:

What we really need is more segregated bike lanes,

No.  We need an entire shift away from the normalisation of motorvehicle transport and an extensive, connected network of bikelanes with the motorvehicles segregated onto a restricted, expensive network.   A few more segregated bike lanes are not going to solve anything.

nbrus wrote:

but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.

The sanctimony of this speaks for itself.

 

I think your post says it all. Not only have you misunderstood what I've said, but you are showing all the signs of self-rightousness  and selfishness that leads to aggression between cyclists and other road users. You are unable to see both sides of the problem and  even when you can you're not going to be the one that will change.

nbrus wrote:

I think your post says it all. Not only have you misunderstood what I've said, but you are showing all the signs of self-rightousness  and selfishness that leads to aggression between cyclists and other road users. You are unable to see both sides of the problem and  even when you can you're not going to be the one that will change.

Why do you assume that there are only two sides of the problem here?  I would bet you a considerable sum of money that the poor bugger that was knocked down here thinks very similarly to you.  That's why he was not in primary.  And that's what happens when you start behaving in a way that is different from other vehicles on the road:  predicting your position becomes difficult and it encourages idiots to try their idiot moves.

What you are advocating is behaving illegally and, more importantly, dangerously.  Nipping in to lanes closed off with traffic cones because you fear the wrath or displeasure of another road user is likely to lead to accidents.

It's simple:  follow the rules, ride where people can see you, signal clearly and expect that they have low IQs.  The stats show that if you do that stuff then you'll be fine.

Alternatively you can cower in the gutter and admonish other cyclists for getting knocked down and then ride up the inside of a truck on your segretated bikelane and get squashed at a junction.

Your call.

nbrus wrote:

a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.

Yes it would, and the appropriate onus really needs to be on the operators of the devices that cause carnage on the roads.

nbrus wrote:

What we really need is more segregated bike lanes, but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.

No! What we really need is people in vehicles to take care of other road users, to concentrate on their driving, to overtake properly, to recognise that in busy traffic a bike can be going faster than bigger vehicles, to use their mirrors and indicators, to get the fuck off their phones/sat navs /sandwiches, to see cyclists as people and not some kind of obstruction to be got round at all costs...

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

nbrus wrote:

What we really need is more segregated bike lanes, but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.

No! What we really need is people in vehicles to take care of other road users, to concentrate on their driving, to overtake properly, to recognise that in busy traffic a bike can be going faster than bigger vehicles, to use their mirrors and indicators, to get the fuck off their phones/sat navs /sandwiches, to see cyclists as people and not some kind of obstruction to be got round at all costs...

It seems to me that in any walk of life or driving any size vehicle, people will try to take the piss and bully their way in - either you develop a strategy for dealing with that (either give way or assert yourself), or you can complain about how unfair it is while sprawled on the ground.

beezus fufoon wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

nbrus wrote:

What we really need is more segregated bike lanes, but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.

No! What we really need is people in vehicles to take care of other road users, to concentrate on their driving, to overtake properly, to recognise that in busy traffic a bike can be going faster than bigger vehicles, to use their mirrors and indicators, to get the fuck off their phones/sat navs /sandwiches, to see cyclists as people and not some kind of obstruction to be got round at all costs...

It seems to me that in any walk of life or driving any size vehicle, people will try to take the piss and bully their way in - either you develop a strategy for dealing with that (either give way or assert yourself), or you can complain about how unfair it is while sprawled on the ground.

Sorry, but this is a silly comment.

I do tend to agree that in any walk of life people in more powerful positions will show a tendency to abuse that power, as that's how human beings roll. (Lord Acton said it more succinctly).

But firstly, 'size of vehicle' misses the point slightly - even a smallish car gives you far more physical protection than does a bike. So a small car vs a lorry isn't the same situation as a bike vs a car.

Secondly the two things you suggest are quite obviously not the only two options. A third one, a far more popular one than your suggestions, is not to cycle. The fourth one is to try and get the physical environment changed to make it much harder for the more powerful party to abuse their power (so, oddly, nbrus started off well before veering off into 'share the road' bollocks)

(Emotionally I agree with daveyravey, but rationally I just think 'yeah, good luck with that')

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

nbrus wrote:

What we really need is more segregated bike lanes, but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.

No! What we really need is people in vehicles to take care of other road users, to concentrate on their driving, to overtake properly, to recognise that in busy traffic a bike can be going faster than bigger vehicles, to use their mirrors and indicators, to get the fuck off their phones/sat navs /sandwiches, to see cyclists as people and not some kind of obstruction to be got round at all costs...

It seems to me that in any walk of life or driving any size vehicle, people will try to take the piss and bully their way in - either you develop a strategy for dealing with that (either give way or assert yourself), or you can complain about how unfair it is while sprawled on the ground.

Sorry, but this is a silly comment.

I do tend to agree that in any walk of life people in more powerful positions will show a tendency to abuse that power, as that's how human beings roll. (Lord Acton said it more succinctly).

But firstly, 'size of vehicle' misses the point slightly - even a smallish car gives you far more physical protection than does a bike. So a small car vs a lorry isn't the same situation as a bike vs a car.

Secondly the two things you suggest are quite obviously not the only two options. A third one, a far more popular one than your suggestions, is not to cycle. The fourth one is to try and get the physical environment changed to make it much harder for the more powerful party to abuse their power (so, oddly, nbrus started off well before veering off into 'share the road' bollocks)

(Emotionally I agree with daveyravey, but rationally I just think 'yeah, good luck with that')

so you're saying that as a cyclist in the current environment, you have necessarily chosen the less powerful position, and should behave accordingly by generally deferring to the more powerful and by appealing to authority in cases of perceived abuse?

beezus fufoon wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

nbrus wrote:

What we really need is more segregated bike lanes, but in the meatime a little more situational awareness and consideration from all road users (both drivers and cyclists) would go a long way to improving safety and relationships and hopefully avoid the type of incident we see here.

No! What we really need is people in vehicles to take care of other road users, to concentrate on their driving, to overtake properly, to recognise that in busy traffic a bike can be going faster than bigger vehicles, to use their mirrors and indicators, to get the fuck off their phones/sat navs /sandwiches, to see cyclists as people and not some kind of obstruction to be got round at all costs...

It seems to me that in any walk of life or driving any size vehicle, people will try to take the piss and bully their way in - either you develop a strategy for dealing with that (either give way or assert yourself), or you can complain about how unfair it is while sprawled on the ground.

Sorry, but this is a silly comment.

I do tend to agree that in any walk of life people in more powerful positions will show a tendency to abuse that power, as that's how human beings roll. (Lord Acton said it more succinctly).

But firstly, 'size of vehicle' misses the point slightly - even a smallish car gives you far more physical protection than does a bike. So a small car vs a lorry isn't the same situation as a bike vs a car.

Secondly the two things you suggest are quite obviously not the only two options. A third one, a far more popular one than your suggestions, is not to cycle. The fourth one is to try and get the physical environment changed to make it much harder for the more powerful party to abuse their power (so, oddly, nbrus started off well before veering off into 'share the road' bollocks)

(Emotionally I agree with daveyravey, but rationally I just think 'yeah, good luck with that')

so you're saying that as a cyclist in the current environment, you have necessarily chosen the less powerful position, and should behave accordingly by generally deferring to the more powerful and by appealing to authority in cases of perceived abuse?

What? You don't appear to have read what I wrote. Are you saying there are only those two options or not?

I'm saying that in a situation which is fubar, there's no perfect way for the individual to respond. People have to just muddle -through with what approach seems best to them, and, rather than putting too much energy into trying to secure a one-up position for yourself in relation to those who are also trying to cope with the fubar situation, it would be better to concentrate on changing that situation.

So its pointless to be constantly looking for things that the more vulnerable party 'did wrong' in incidents like this. I find it tiresome when people keep doing that.

I mean, someone 'takes the lane' and gets hit, then someone will pipe up saying they were asking for trouble getting in drivers' way like that. If they cycle in the gutter and get clipped by a too-close overtaker, someone will immediately say they bought it on themselves by not taking the lane. It just seems like a pointless ego-contest that doesn't help.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 What? You don't appear to have read what I wrote. Are you saying there are only those two options or not?

I'm saying that in a situation which is fubar, there's no perfect way for the individual to respond. People have to just muddle -through with what approach seems best to them, and, rather than putting too much energy into trying to secure a one-up position for yourself in relation to those who are also trying to cope with the fubar situation, it would be better to concentrate on changing that situation.

I agree with the basic idea here, I was talking about how to deal with it today and tomorrow rather than how to deal with different situations which may arise under different conditions in the future.

I have observed though, that on the cycle superhighways there are very similar patterns of behaviour, with some trying to barge their way through, others trying to avoid them, while a third "type" seem oblivious to this one-upmanship.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So its pointless to be constantly looking for things that the more vulnerable party 'did wrong' in incidents like this. I find it tiresome when people keep doing that.

I mean, someone 'takes the lane' and gets hit, then someone will pipe up saying they were asking for trouble getting in drivers' way like that. If they cycle in the gutter and get clipped by a too-close overtaker, someone will immediately say they bought it on themselves by not taking the lane. It just seems like a pointless ego-contest that doesn't help.

As you said above - it is more about the individuals in relation to the fubar situation and focusing on how that situation can be improved. As such, any focus on either party's behaviour shifts the focus away from improving the situation and instead turns it into a personal battle between competing individuals.

psling wrote:

Sorry beezus fufoon, edited whilst you were posting.

I take it you're suggesting 'fake news' ?

I wouldn't put money on it - but something seems a bit off there - the guy talking notices straight away, and the impact is at 6 seconds - that is a very long time for a cyclist to not react in my opinion.

beezus fufoon wrote:

psling wrote:

Sorry beezus fufoon, edited whilst you were posting.

I take it you're suggesting 'fake news' ?

I wouldn't put money on it - but something seems a bit off there - the guy talking notices straight away, and the impact is at 6 seconds - that is a very long time for a cyclist to not react in my opinion.

Their fall is a bit 'stunt'... but let's assume it isn't.

I think you might be over-egging the time they've actually had to react... They'll be aware of a car behind them, but I think it only really encroaches on them a couple of seconds before hitting them. The cyclist slightly wobbles prior to the collision, which suggests to me they've only just become aware of exactly how close the car is, and maybe had the 'wtf' look sideways as HarrogateSpa mentioned above. I think somewhere between 5 and 6 seconds on the video the cyclist becomes aware.. and is then hit pretty instantly.

But even if they knew how close it was, at that point they can't have known that the car was going to try to get past at that distance. I'm often approached too close by drivers that then take wide swerves round to get past... You've got your head down, you're aware of a car behind... and then you're only aware of how much room they've actually given you as they  overtake. By then it's too late to get them to take any other route, and I cannot eyeball every single car that passes me on a ride. I'm not an owl.

So how do you react in that situation? The only feasible actions at that point are to swerve off left in the junction, or to go ape-shit at the car/driver (or a combination of the two) - either of which the cyclist would have had to do in a split second, while they're pre-occupied with correcting the wobble/trying to avoid being hit by a car that is pretty determinedly being driven into them. They only know when it's too late. If you pulled over or went mental over every potential danger on the road, you'd either make no progress or get arrested/be assaulted sharpish.

tl;dr: none of this is on the cyclist - it's all the driver's fault.

davel wrote:

...maybe had the 'wtf' look sideways...

that's exactly what I'm not seeing which made me question it in the first place - zero head movement 

beezus fufoon wrote:

davel wrote:

...maybe had the 'wtf' look sideways...

that's exactly what I'm not seeing which made me question it in the first place - zero head movement 

Ah yes  - could be a simultaneous sideways-glance-and-shit-themselves.

All speculation of course, but I'm thinking them being startled caused the minor wobble.

All of what the cyclist did/didn't do is irrelevant compared to the twat in the car preferring to risk the cyclist's physical wellbeing over their own shitmobile's paintwork.