"That's a human being" - Chris Boardman slams Sainsbury's response to close pass video

I've found the location:

https://goo.gl/maps/R8fdJn81dau

A20 Eltham Road, SE12, Greenwich Borough Council, London. It's a red route, so TFL has some responsibility for it, but I don't know if that includes the design of the cycle infarcestructure.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/what-we-do/roads

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/red-route-south-area-map.pdf

Anyone know which is the responsible authority?

I suggest that people might consider contacting them and highlighting the consequences of their lethally flawed cycling infrastructure? (As well as blasting Sainsbury's on social media - I don't want to hear they are "taking it very seriously". I want to hear what concrete actions they are taking to ensure this doesn't happen again before someone gets killed.)

it's also a broken white line not solid, so in fact drivers can actually use that road space. which means cyclists who think they're safe in a cycle lane, while filtering in that lane, could in fact be in a lorries blindspot and the driver can legally move across if he sees nothing in his mirrors. (see video the other day)

 A pointless paint job, ignore them and ride off the kerb and more so when there is traffic furniture, if there is no oncoming traffic, then they can overtake. 

Cycle lanes have brought about the conflicts we have now and they should be done any with!

I had a run in with a sainsburys truck last year, he was driving along in right by the curb in a cycle lane, while waiting in traffic.  I rode around the right hand side and mentioned to the driver he was blocking the cycle lane and he told me to "F*** off".  
Sainsburys reviewed the video I sent them but said that they couldn't identify the driver so wouldn't take any action.

That's a dreadful overtake and totally unnecessary too. Sainsbury should be giving the driver an official warning and making the person undergo compulsory cycle training.

From my own experience, a lot of poor overtakes are unnecessary. Drivers who can't see a stretch of road narrowing ahead or appreciate that there's an oncoming vehicle also tend to be unable to comprehend that the reason they are making slow progress is due to the number of vehicles in front of them that'll inevitably be queuing at junctions, and not the bicycle they're trying to pass.

Don't assume that all cycle lanes are actually conceived with the safety of cyclists in mind.

Cycle lanes like the one in this story, ie. non-mandatory/broken line, aren't necessarily put in for the benefit of cyclists.

Silly-ass Liberal councillor round my way gets them put in becasue he says 'They are a useful tool to help reduce traffic speed'. This same person doesn't give a wotsit about cyclists.

hg v driver gambles with cyclists lift at 10 seconds, road widens and buss lane starts at 25 seconds.

what we see here is a driver who has so little regard for human life, that passing 15 seconds earlier on the way to join a queue of slowing/stationary cars is more important than somw children being orphaned.

And comments from society at large that agree.

I just read the top comments at the Sun -  I dont know why ,  but cycle "bigotry" seems to be alive and well there. Even comments from truck drivers of 19 years not seeing any problem ...

there seem to be 3 arguments:

1. "He was in his own lane" - bad infrastructure justifies careless driving argument..

2." Where do you want the lorry to go?" as if the lorry driver was incapable of seeing the road narrow ahead and slowing down considering their relative speed looked about 5mph different.

3. Road Tax/Cyclists and all the general arguments against their presence on the road. - this could easily be quashed with a campaign to educate people about how the roads are funded. Maybe we should crowdsource some adverts if the government wont do it. It seems to be the one that they get emotional about - as if cyclists are stealing money right out of their wallets..

It would appear that this cycle farcility is narrower than any acceptable guidance defines, and actually increases danger to cyclists, so why is it there?  Who proposed it?  Who allowed it?  Who signed off on the risk assessment?  Why do any of them still have  job?

Get on to the council responsible for this road, find out the answers and really hassle the councillors.  Pointing out that they could be sued by a cyclist injured by their crap infrastructure might be useful.

Unfortunately  I can see why people think if they don't cross the line on a cycle lane it must be okay! so if the police suggest .75m is the riding distance from the road edge and the a driver should allow 1.5m  it would make sense for all cycle lanes to be 2.25m wide?

Strangely enough, I was thinking about this, the other day...

Throughout driving lessons, learners are told to give enough room, when passing parked cars, in case a door opens - so why isn't the same logic applied to passing cyclists?

I would certainly like to see more attention being paid to the subject by instructors, whether for basic car driving or more 'advanced' driving, such as LGV and PSV.

Incidentally, my partner and I often mention the motorcyclists' head shake, given when a car driver does something stupid or dangerous - a couple of weeks ago, I had to do the same to a motorcyclist, who had appeared on my right, whilst signalling to turn left into the local council depot!

Up until that point, I'd always considered them to be on the same 'side' as cyclists, being at risk from the stupidity of others, but I could change my mind...

2 problems led to this (apart from the obvious driver issues)
First that cycle lane looks to be narrower than many hybrid or mountain bike handlebars, no question that is unfit for purpose.

Secondly, one of the reasons drivers do this i HGVs today, is the new digital tachograph replacements that store the info on a digital system include WAY moreinfo than before. Most supermarket haulage is sub contracted out, and the major haulage contractors use the tacho info for working our the drivers bonuses etc. A driver who keeps a steady 55mph may use less fuel and induce less wear on the truck, but that attempt to keep a steady speed, not lose momentum, also means in situations like this his wallet might be telling him notto slow down, just keep it steady. It's the same as why at large roundabouts over motorway junctions particularly you will see som many trucks trying to coast it to avoid stopping at the lights, and in some cases simply not stopping and as in one recently case, turning a cyclist into a statistic. The Tacho reports only "efficencies" of the driving, not any external factors. I'm all for weeding out bad drivers my using the tacho info to get rid of the 40 ton boy racers, but when it starts being a financial issue for drivers to wait and drive safely, it's gone too far.

Seems to be another example of the cycling 'infrastructure' being worse than not having anything there at all, at least with no lane the cyclist would probably ride further out and the lorry driver would (hopefully) move out to pass properly.

On a more satisfying note, almost every night when I cycle back from work, a car will always try to overtake me in the same section (20mph zone outside two schools none the less) just before the traffic island. Last night, when the day's impatient driver left it really late to pass they ended up clipping the bollard in the middle of the island where they misjudged it, and just coming round the corner was a police car. to say the smile on my face was difficult to wipe off would be an understatement. (I'm sure there'll be more close passes tonight or tomorrow but at least that was one time it's served them right)

Absolutely, I'm not saying it's right (and calm down Jackson, you'll do yourself a mischief) and I think a big company should come out and say that it is not acceptable after the event. I'm talking about the initial action (one idiot) and the early reaction (one ill informed social media marketing bod). It doesn't make Sainsbury's disgusting...

It would be great if Sainsbury's could write something in the drivers contracts to say that any driver found doing such a thing will be put on bog cleaning duty for a week and paid the appropriate wage.

On a tangent, these delivery vans they have for home shopping are now some of the worst menaces out there...

What a terrible pass.   As I approach a pinch point, I look behind, then take up a primary position - sometimes indicating as I do.  This tends to make the point that the vehicle following needs to hang back.  I also never cycle within those cycle lanes - on the line as a minimum.   London is full of that kind of horrible pinch point,  and drivers willing to make a dangerous manoeuvre.

How f-ing close was that lorry to the bike's handlebars???  Makes me wince, just watching that video.

So, if that cyclist had caught up on one of the drain covers and come off and been squashed, or if they had even just wobbled ever so slightly and been sucked under the wheels, would Sainsburys have said that it was the cyclist's fault because they should have stayed in their own lane?  

Thoroughly disgusting and ignorant response.

Well, look on the bright side.  Unlike in quite a lot of places, the cycle lane isn't made smaller where it passes the traffic island, in order to retain the size of the "not cycle lane".  

The driving was appalling.  The excuse as bad.  And the infrastructure encourages it.

I would wager that over half of the driving public believe that a cycle lane is like another lane of the highway and so defines the amount of space that's necessary to give to the person in that lane (in the same way they would stay in lane when passing another car if it was in the inside lane).  

There is no possible use for a cycle lane like the one in the video; if it was added to keep the cars a safe distance from the cyclists then it has to be wide enough to do that, which means the cycle lane needs to be 2.25m wide according to the close pass initiative.  If it was added just as inside filter lane for the exclusive use of cyclists in stationery traffic (which obviously it wasn't) then the Highway Code needs to reflect that, as does driving tuition.

The problem is duofold, those lanes are unsafe by design and the highway code contradicts itself between its advice on passing cyclists and the use of carriageway lanes.  I'm amazed nobody has sued the government yet following a cycle lane collision.

Edit: I wonder if driver behaviour would change if the dashed line of the cycle lane *was* 2.25m from the kerb, would it feel more like the cyclist had priority?

The pointlessness of this risky manouver is what strikes me the most!  Predictably a mere few seconds later the truck is stationary in a line of traffic again and the rider carries on past him... which anybody who has ever driven or ridden in a town in Britain knows is 99% certain to happen.  This is a professional driver, driving in London, putting someone at great risk despinte it being obvious that within a minute the situation will have been reversed.  

I had this once with a minibus, the guy came past me in a similar way then stopped at the lights:

Me:  "its really firghtening when you come past that close"

Him:  "We are trained not to leave the lane"

... what am I supposed to do with that...?

But you cannot police every member of staff every minute of every day - some cashier somewhere may call someone a rude name, someone in the warehouse may hold sexist views.

I'm not saying it is not wise to raise it, hopefully it will help. All I am saying is that one of several million drivers behaved like an idiot on a given journey. The video was posted and some 'marketing guy' monitoring social media tried to be a bit defensive of the driverith a view that millions of motorists share. All this is likely to have happened before Mr J Sainsbury had a chance to authorise their demise.