Actor Eddie Marsan rants about cyclists ignoring red lights and bike lanes; New Cav deal looks unlikely; Calls for infra after crash; 1-0 Sam Bennett; Reaction to L2B train ban; Bad parking; AOC's cycling dress; Tour of Britain doc + more on the live blog

that video does not show a brake check. it doesnt show the car after its gone past the group. your assuming it from the cyclists reaction. that might be right but its not in the video.

nicmason wrote:

that video does not show a brake check. it doesnt show the car after its gone past the group. your assuming it from the cyclists reaction. that might be right but its not in the video.

Just realised that you're distinguishing between actually seeing the car perform a brake check and the effects of that. I think it's disingenous for the BBC to cut out that bit as it's obvious what happened.

nicmason wrote:

that video does not show a brake check. it doesnt show the car after its gone past the group. your assuming it from the cyclists reaction. that might be right but its not in the video.

You are corret in that the brake check isn' shown, however it does show that the driver had stopped immediatly after passing, if it wasn't a brake check then he stopped for an obstruction which should have been visible prior to his overtake and the need to stop so sharply should have cancelled out need/desire to overtake. Either way round it is at least driving without due care and attention

EK Spinner wrote:

nicmason wrote:

that video does not show a brake check. it doesnt show the car after its gone past the group. your assuming it from the cyclists reaction. that might be right but its not in the video.

You are corret in that the brake check isn' shown, however it does show that the driver had stopped immediatly after passing, if it wasn't a brake check then he stopped for an obstruction which should have been visible prior to his overtake and the need to stop so sharply should have cancelled out need/desire to overtake. Either way round it is at least driving without due care and attention

There was approx 12 seconds between his overtake and the "brake check".

hawkinspeter wrote:

Time for another BBC complaint, I reckon.

Edit: Just hammered out this complaint:

Quote:

The video shown of a driver punching a cyclist has been edited in a way that distorts what happened. The description also has "when they caught up to him", whereas the full video shows that the driver performed a "brake check" with the intention of causing the cyclists to collide with his car.

As the removed section was only 10-15 seconds in length, it raises the question as to why the BBC felt this was necessary unless they are trying to change the narrative to make it appear as though the cyclists were attempting to surround the car and intimidate the driver.

Good luck with that; the BBC is institutionally anti-cyclist.  I've no idea why, but they indisputably are and have been for at least 40 years.  None of my complaints succeeded, despite overwhelming evidence, but when you're judge and jury in your own case, as the BBC is, they are very rarely going to find themselves guilty.  As one famous reporter said, who's name escapes me, the BBC complaints process exists solely to exonerate their staff.

EDIT; it was Kate Adie.

The BBC is concerned about the treatment of minority groups but not cyclists - they use the BBC to attack them.

I have also sent a complaint in along the same lines and have requested a response to the factually inaccurate news article.

Highlighting the video description and how it was the driver that started the entire incident.  I won't hold my breath regarding a reply.

I won't hold my breath regarding a reply

This, in Lancashire at least, is the main police weapon in the cover up of the idleness endemic in Traffic Police. There has been no reply, despite reminders, to a letter of 26th July asking about the action taken over this 13th July close passing incident. It is obvious, as will be emphasised in my PCC complaint, that absolutely no action was taken and they don't want to admit anything in print. When they won't tell you, it means they just filed the complaint in the bin. He was right over the double white line as well- but that isn't regarded as an offence in Lancashire

hawkinspeter wrote:

Time for another BBC complaint, I reckon.

Edit: Just hammered out this complaint:

Quote:

The video shown of a driver punching a cyclist has been edited in a way that distorts what happened. The description also has "when they caught up to him", whereas the full video shows that the driver performed a "brake check" with the intention of causing the cyclists to collide with his car.

As the removed section was only 10-15 seconds in length, it raises the question as to why the BBC felt this was necessary unless they are trying to change the narrative to make it appear as though the cyclists were attempting to surround the car and intimidate the driver.

The BBC also describe his wife as having fallen off her bike, as opposed to being knocked off her bike by the idiots car.

I have also just noticed that the car had come to a halt during the brake check, he then pulled forward while being passed by the group of riders, surely that in itself is driving without due care

I have also just noticed that the car had come to a halt during the brake check, he then pulled forward while being passed by the group of riders, surely that in itself is driving without due care

Which is omitted from the BBC footage, just him driving forward surrounded by cyclists after "they caught up with him" to "complain about the bad pass". 

I made sure that part was added to my complaint to the BBC.

"In reality, during the removed footage the driver performed a brake check manoeuvre with a view to having the cyclists involved crash into the back of their vehicle. As the cyclists passed the driver he began to accelerate, and when the ride leader tried to de-escalate the situation the driver then began the assault of the cyclist. Therefore the entire confrontation was instigated by the motorist but the edited video does not show the true facts of the incident."

Grabbing hold of someone's wing mirror, however much of a dangerous dork they have been, is emphatically NOT 'de-escalating'!!

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Grabbing hold of someone's wing mirror, however much of a dangerous dork they have been, is emphatically NOT 'de-escalating'!!

I am just using the language that was given in the original road.cc piece on the matter and the language used by the cyclist in the later part of the video on the BBC.

But just remember the average person who will watch the video and read the article will watch up to the point in the video which has the narrative saying when the cyclists caught up with him, or words to that effect.  Which is implying that the cyclists went looking for trouble.  Whereas in reality if the driver had simply went on his way this would have been a non event

EK Spinner wrote:

The BBC also describe his wife as having fallen off her bike, as opposed to being knocked off her bike by the idiots car.

Oh, come on!?  Seriously??

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Roadcc wrote:

The video sparked a debate about who was at fault, with some saying the Range Rover driver's positioning made the situation worse, while others lay the blame solely with the Peugeot driver.

Even the cyclist himself admitted he was partially culpable, so I'm not sure why people wouldn't note that he wasn't cycling in a sensibly defensive position.

However, this case highlights the pathetic SUVs that take up an increasing amount of space on our roads. If Range Rover driver had instead been driving a normally sized car™, then both cyclist and turning driver would have had a clear line of sight and the accident most likely wouldn't have happened.

There really is no need for the vast majority of these kind of cars to be on the roads, and it's high time something was done about them.

Nigel has been kidnapped or is a victim of identity theft.  Where is the real Nigel?

There was a very good comment on fake chains too...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Roadcc wrote:

The video sparked a debate about who was at fault, with some saying the Range Rover driver's positioning made the situation worse, while others lay the blame solely with the Peugeot driver.

Even the cyclist himself admitted he was partially culpable, so I'm not sure why people wouldn't note that he wasn't cycling in a sensibly defensive position.

However, this case highlights the pathetic SUVs that take up an increasing amount of space on our roads. If Range Rover driver had instead been driving a normally sized car™, then both cyclist and turning driver would have had a clear line of sight and the accident most likely wouldn't have happened.

There really is no need for the vast majority of these kind of cars to be on the roads, and it's high time something was done about them.

When I was sitting on the footpath after crashing my bike avoiding a woman who ran across the road in front of me I blamed myself, thinking "Damn, it I should have anticipated that." But she was still at fault.

The same in this situation. The Peugeot driver was the one who caused the collision. the cyclist blamed himself for not anticipating and avoiding it.

As for the SUV, whether or not cars that big are necessary or not is irrelevant. If it hadn't been there, its place could have been taken by a Transit which would have had much the same effect. I don't like them but if  we banned all the things I don't like it would be a dreary, uninteresting world. (If we banned everything anybody disliked there'd be nothing left. )

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Roadcc wrote:

The video sparked a debate about who was at fault, with some saying the Range Rover driver's positioning made the situation worse, while others lay the blame solely with the Peugeot driver.

Even the cyclist himself admitted he was partially culpable, so I'm not sure why people wouldn't note that he wasn't cycling in a sensibly defensive position.

I don't think culpability means what you think it means. Noting that you didn't take every measure possible to defend yourself does not make you responsible for someone else's negligence or criminality. If you really dig into it the people outside Fishmongers Hall could have better protected themselves by wearing stabvests and carrying cans of mace  with them every day, but no one in their right mind would suggest they were culpable for their own murders.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Even the cyclist himself admitted he was partially culpable, so I'm not sure why people wouldn't note that he wasn't cycling in a sensibly defensive position.

With regards to the culpability side of it, I disagree.  I think you need to ask yourself one question.

Would any motorist say that a pedestrian had any culpability in a situation where the pedestrian was crossing a road at a pedestrian crossing and a cyclist ran a red light Zebra crossing when the pedestrian was already more than half way across the road and a cyclist collided with the pedestrian?

The answer is of course no!!!  But the pedestrian could have looked and spotted the approaching cyclist and thereby avoided being struck by them. 

Yep, parking is a nightmare.  I live close to a Deli which has double yellows on both sides of the road about 50m either side of the Deli as there are multiple junctions nearby.  And every single day from about 11am to 2pm there will be multiple cars and vans on the double yellow lines with their hazard warning lights on when they are in the deli.

It's been raised with the council as it is frankly dangerous as one of the junctions is completely unsighted from the main road, and its so easy to come round the corner face to face with a car passing the vehicles parked on the double yellows

Some dutch thing where there is an 'upramp'.

Although I don't think that they are applicable to all circumstances.

But I'd assume it's the presumed liability not the ramp itself that's the key to that working ultimately.

I dunno,its just in that bit at least it's already working as 'proper infra' would, the rest of it looks like a car park which seems a bit odd for a dedicated bus lane, but theres no combination of physical barrier or paint on road that's going to stop a vehicle turning across a lane if the driver perceives there to be a gap...IMO.

Awavey wrote:

What kind of 'proper infra' would have prevented that ?

Hoverbikes.  On the cycle to work scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyCycle_(proposed_transport_project)

And it would only take 20 years to complete so sounds perfect for hitting Khan's vision zero target (zero road deaths / injuries by the time that the proposer is likely to qualify for a free bus pass - allowing for retirement age inflation).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ZBLsvqkUA

If it saves one life... Bonus points as they could be forced to stop at red lights, be prevented from filtering and there's space for a licence plate too.

The former Flamingo Land one looks a bit more realistic in there's a chance of falling off.

Coolest one was found by hawkinspeter - from New Zealand?

Realistically there will always be some interaction with motorised vehicles (until they're restricted to motorways and track days...).  Nothing involving humans is infallible - including self-driving vehicles. Seems the keys in design are a) reducing the cognitive load and b) ensuring everyone knows exactly what is expected - so as much standardisation as possible.  Both problematic apparently for many of the designers / powers that be in the UK...

Continuous footway / cycle track: https://bristolwalkingalliance.org.uk/continuous-footways/

The best infra doesn't necessarily mean cycle tracks next to roads - or even cycle tracks at all: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/segregationwithoutcyclepaths