Cyclists divided over video of van driver failing to wait for father and child on busy road; Thibaut Pinot: “The first thing I’ll sell is the turbo trainer”; Police target red light jumping cyclists; Why don’t you use cycle lanes? + more on the live blog

Because this scenario is a one way street.

It does get complicated where someone overtakes a few parked cars where it can become 'who got there first'. Although one thing that really annoys me is driver 3 pushing through on the wrong side with no view and no regard for those the other way correctly on their side of the road.

hirsute wrote:

Because this scenario is a one way street. It does get complicated where someone overtakes a few parked cars where it can become 'who got there first'. Although one thing that really annoys me is driver 3 pushing through on the wrong side with no view and no regard for those the other way correctly on their side of the road.

Oo - oo!  I can give an example of this 

Bridge Road in Leigh Woods, outside Bristol but approaching the suspension bridge.

https://goo.gl/maps/mncptcBUpZBC9EFi8

So when I'm coming in, in the morning, there is a long queue of cars waiting to get over the suspension bridge to go into Bristol.

There are also, as you can see, parked cars along the right hand side of the road (from my point of view).  So the parked cars are in the lane of the oncoming traffic and there isn't room for any oncoming traffic to come through if a bike or a motorbike is filtering past the queue.

And yet, if I am filtering past the queue, not even passing into the other lane, for some reason it's always me who loses the game of chicken and has to dive into a gap in the queue.

Even though, as I understood it, if I am in the gap first then they should be waiting for me to pass.

brooksby wrote:

Oo - oo!  I can give an example of this 

Bridge Road in Leigh Woods, outside Bristol but approaching the suspension bridge.

https://goo.gl/maps/mncptcBUpZBC9EFi8

So when I'm coming in, in the morning, there is a long queue of cars waiting to get over the suspension bridge to go into Bristol.

There are also, as you can see, parked cars along the right hand side of the road (from my point of view).  So the parked cars are in the lane of the oncoming traffic and there isn't room for any oncoming traffic to come through if a bike or a motorbike is filtering past the queue.

And yet, if I am filtering past the queue, not even passing into the other lane, for some reason it's always me who loses the game of chicken and has to dive into a gap in the queue.

Even though, as I understood it, if I am in the gap first then they should be waiting for me to pass.

I disagree. If you're overtaking/filtering then you should cede priority to traffic coming the other way. I generally have a high tolerance for slipping through gaps, so I continue where there's room, but pull in behind a stationary vehicle where the gap gets too small to allow oncoming traffic.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I disagree. If you're overtaking/filtering then you should cede priority to traffic coming the other way. I generally have a high tolerance for slipping through gaps, so I continue where there's room, but pull in behind a stationary vehicle where the gap gets too small to allow oncoming traffic.

The cars coming the other way are also overtaking and are crossing the centre line to do so, the fact that they are overtaking parked cars is irrelevant.

Backladder wrote:

The cars coming the other way are also overtaking and are crossing the centre line to do so, the fact that they are overtaking parked cars is irrelevant.

Well, overtaking parked cars is just the usual traffic flow on lots of roads, so I would consider they should be allowed to progress when I'm deliberately trying to progress quicker than the slow/stopped traffic on my side.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Oo - oo!  I can give an example of this 

Bridge Road in Leigh Woods, outside Bristol but approaching the suspension bridge.

https://goo.gl/maps/mncptcBUpZBC9EFi8

So when I'm coming in, in the morning, there is a long queue of cars waiting to get over the suspension bridge to go into Bristol.

There are also, as you can see, parked cars along the right hand side of the road (from my point of view).  So the parked cars are in the lane of the oncoming traffic and there isn't room for any oncoming traffic to come through if a bike or a motorbike is filtering past the queue.

And yet, if I am filtering past the queue, not even passing into the other lane, for some reason it's always me who loses the game of chicken and has to dive into a gap in the queue.

Even though, as I understood it, if I am in the gap first then they should be waiting for me to pass.

I disagree. If you're overtaking/filtering then you should cede priority to traffic coming the other way. I generally have a high tolerance for slipping through gaps, so I continue where there's room, but pull in behind a stationary vehicle where the gap gets too small to allow oncoming traffic.

But whatabout (yes, I know) if I am going through there, and I'm on my side of the white line, before the oncoming car even appears round the bend at the bottom...?

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I disagree. If you're overtaking/filtering then you should cede priority to traffic coming the other way. I generally have a high tolerance for slipping through gaps, so I continue where there's room, but pull in behind a stationary vehicle where the gap gets too small to allow oncoming traffic.

But whatabout (yes, I know) if I am going through there, and I'm on my side of the white line, before the oncoming car even appears round the bend at the bottom...?

I don't think the white lines mean much (they're more guidelines than actual rules), so it depends on how safe I feel squeezing through gaps. However, I don't usually look to overtake around that bend as there's the magic paint on the inside, so I like to use that and scowl at all the drivers blocking parts of it.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't think the white lines mean much (they're more guidelines than actual rules), so it depends on how safe I feel squeezing through gaps. However, I don't usually look to overtake around that bend as there's the magic paint on the inside, so I like to use that and scowl at all the drivers blocking parts of it.

I'd never filter going around the bend - I'd always use the painted lane (when someone in an SUV hasn't drifted across into it...).  I'm talking about the long straight downhill bit.

brooksby wrote:

I'd never filter going around the bend - I'd always use the painted lane (when someone in an SUV hasn't drifted across into it...).  I'm talking about the long straight downhill bit.

That bit, I just overtake the stationary traffic, but slow down for oncoming traffic and pull in and stop if it gets too tight. By rights, you should have priority being on the correct side of the white line, but I think only cyclists are that precise about road positioning, so I try to let oncoming traffic continue. I do get beeped at on occasion where I think there's enough room for me and the oncoming motorist thinks I'm chancing it.

brooksby wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Because this scenario is a one way street. It does get complicated where someone overtakes a few parked cars where it can become 'who got there first'. Although one thing that really annoys me is driver 3 pushing through on the wrong side with no view and no regard for those the other way correctly on their side of the road.

Oo - oo!  I can give an example of this 

Bridge Road in Leigh Woods, outside Bristol but approaching the suspension bridge.

https://goo.gl/maps/mncptcBUpZBC9EFi8

So when I'm coming in, in the morning, there is a long queue of cars waiting to get over the suspension bridge to go into Bristol.

 

I bet you don't pay for crossing the bridge, either.  

mattw wrote:

I bet you don't pay for crossing the bridge, either.  

My favourite illegal maneouvre on my bike is to pass the bridge barriers using the oncoming lane when it's clear as it's so much quicker/easier than using the official bike lane/pavement/chicane. (Arguably safer as you don't have to figure out who's using the road first between a cyclist and two lanes of barrier controlled traffic)

https://goo.gl/maps/Cj1jSbvuYvEqvatr9

hawkinspeter wrote:

mattw wrote:

I bet you don't pay for crossing the bridge, either.  

My favourite illegal maneouvre on my bike is to pass the bridge barriers using the oncoming lane when it's clear as it's so much quicker/easier than using the official bike lane/pavement/chicane.

Doesn't everybody (on a bike)?

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

My favourite illegal maneouvre on my bike is to pass the bridge barriers using the oncoming lane when it's clear as it's so much quicker/easier than using the official bike lane/pavement/chicane.

Doesn't everybody (on a bike)?

I've never seen other cyclists doing that.

Really? Huh...

brooksby wrote:

Really? Huh...

Are we talking about the same maneouvre?

In this picture, I'd be attempting to go where the oncoming black car is (though not when there's cars coming through there). It's great as you don't need to slow down, so it's easy to be ahead of the two cars possibly coming out of the barrier controlled lanes.

"Cyclists must dismount" ... Good ... Goood!

To be fair they probably only designed it for cars of between one and six horsepower and I think they were a bit narrower.

chrisonatrike wrote:

"Cyclists must dismount" ... Good ... Goood!

To be fair they probably only designed it for cars of between one and six horsepower and I think they were a bit narrower.

I usually assume the sign is referring to using the walkway as the bike specific bit doesn't make any sense to dismount as you'd walk it a few feet and then be aiming to get back on to rejoin the road. The walkway is barely wide enough for two pedestrians to pass, so cycling along there isn't really feasible especially as it's usually quite busy.

hawkinspeter wrote:

The walkway is barely wide enough for two pedestrians to pass, so cycling along there isn't really feasible especially as it's usually quite busy.

That wouldn't stop quite a few folk looking thoughtfully at it (maybe at night / other time when there's no-one there - or just on the map) and saying "y'know, we could increase our 'miles of cycle infra provided' numbers there..."

I think those dismount signs are a hangover from Covid - they had signs telling people not to ride on the footway, signs telling pedestrians not to overtake other pedestrians on the footway, signs making each side of the bridge one way only, and (weirdly) signs explicitly telling people not to run on the roadway (people 'jogging' used to run on the roadway to avoid running up behind people on the do-not-overtake footways).

brooksby wrote:

I think those dismount signs are a hangover from Covid - they had signs telling people not to ride on the footway, signs telling pedestrians not to overtake other pedestrians on the footway, signs making each side of the bridge one way only, and (weirdly) signs explicitly telling people not to run on the roadway (people 'jogging' used to run on the roadway to avoid running up behind people on the do-not-overtake footways).

I've seen a jogger using the road and getting beeped at by the held up cars behind them - wasn't too long ago either. I don't know why the drivers were getting pissy as there's usually a hold up when they get over the bridge anyhow.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I think those dismount signs are a hangover from Covid - they had signs telling people not to ride on the footway, signs telling pedestrians not to overtake other pedestrians on the footway, signs making each side of the bridge one way only, and (weirdly) signs explicitly telling people not to run on the roadway (people 'jogging' used to run on the roadway to avoid running up behind people on the do-not-overtake footways).

I've seen a jogger using the road and getting beeped at by the held up cars behind them - wasn't too long ago either. I don't know why the drivers were getting pissy as there's usually a hold up when they get over the bridge anyhow.

bEcAuSe ThE rOaD iS fOr CaRs!!

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

bEcAuSe ThE rOaD iS fOr CaRs!!

For that specific location, I'd side with the drivers on that - pedestrians should be using the walkway, although I doubt that you could jog along it due to all the other pedestrians and its narrowness. However, a jogger using the road doesn't cause any issue for me as a cyclist.

chrisonatrike wrote:

"Cyclists must dismount" ... Good ... Goood!

To be fair they probably only designed it for cars of between one and six horsepower and I think they were a bit narrower.

At 5'1" wide, that's halfway between a classic Mini and a BMW MINI.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Really? Huh...

Are we talking about the same maneouvre?

In this picture, I'd be attempting to go where the oncoming black car is (though not when there's cars coming through there). It's great as you don't need to slow down, so it's easy to be ahead of the two cars possibly coming out of the barrier controlled lanes.

Yes, that's what I thought, peter:  I see a lot of people doing that.  TBH I only do it if there's no motorists waiting to go through the toll gates, and nothing oncoming.

brooksby wrote:

Yes, that's what I thought, peter:  I see a lot of people doing that.  TBH I only do it if there's no motorists waiting to go through the toll gates, and nothing oncoming.

Cool - I can feel less guilty about when I do that, then.

If I were keeping my side of the line, I'd expect them to at least slow (haha), otherwise a bit of give and take. Where there is no clear priority, I try to accommodate as long as they are reasonable back. A bit beligerent where I have clear priority.

Awavey wrote:

The footage isnt great to determine this exactly, but it looks to me if the van is stopping, then the cyclist isnt getting past, they both cross each other at the only van shaped hole in that line of cars, the van cant get to that gap any quicker without accelerating, which isnt what you want. So wheres the van supposed to vanish out of the way to ? For me the cyclist has passed a better gap, whilst clearly aware of the oncoming van that they would have been advised to use, then everyone is happy & passes no issue. This is one of those give and take situations I feel, and I can assure you I'm one of those riders who will ride at cars in prime & head on at drivers who refuse to yield and drive past gaps they could fit in these situations normally. This one I wouldnt have.

Pretty much this.  Video starts too late for full context, but from what we can see the Van was already passing parked cars, so the initial decision to proceed or dive in seems to be on the cylist.   Hard to tell if the 2 gaps the van might have used were useful at all.

My general feel is that both could have been more accomadating.

Deffo nothing like as clear cut as the earlier viral incidents.

Only a warning letter for a brake check, then getting out of a running vehicle AND failing to apply the handbrake!! That could have been nasty.

But I have to say, from the footage, they did overtake with plenty of room and whilst the cyclist might have been indicating right, they were a long way back from the junction. There did appear to be room for the driver to make a safe pass, even if they really should have hung back.

It's the driver who turned a minor over-reaction by the cyclist into a dangerous situation and they should have been punished.