“He pays road tax, you don’t”: Motorists – and Ashley Neal – blast Jeremy Vine for black cab close pass video; Extinction Rebellion’s British Cycling protest’s mixed response; Local letter with a difference; Pidcock’s Worlds doubts + more on the live blog

That one at the crossroads at 1'30", on compilation 43, is particularly hairy! 

Perhaps it's because it doesn't affect my safety as much, but I don't notice the no seatbelt thing anywhere near the phone use. 

I think the camera system is not very good at detecting mobile phone use from those figures, absence of a diagonal belt across the chest is relatively easy to identify but a mobile could be held anywhere and would be more difficult. I certainly think the real life proportions are probably the reverse of those figures.

Reading the article with a grammar hat on what difference does it make if the police were wearing seatbelts or not? 

An issue with slowing there was the brompton rider coming up the inside, a motorbike in close proximity and a van was approaching behind the taxi. Letting the taxi go probably would have involved coming to a complete stop behind the parked car. That would make rejoining the traffic flow difficult.

Although the taxi got close, the speed was low and it's a toss up sometimes whether being submissive is any safer than becoming more assertive and trying to hold the traffic back. I would have been quicker to move left after passing the car though, but we can't see if that other bike rider was still on the inside.

As for the late indication, I don't think indicating was necessary. It's clear the traffic in lane 1 needs to move around the parked car and the taxi driver (who was in lane 1!) should not have tried to overtake as they approached this road narrowing.

The cyclist should have indicated (iaw rule 103 of the highway code) but the taxi driver should have anticipated the manoeuvre regardless.

Too many motorists genuinely seem to think that cyclists will run up behind a parked car, disappear with a Star Trek sound effect, and then reappear beyond it.

I don't think it's unfair for a car driver to think that cyclists might be able to pass a stopped vehicle without moving to an adjacent lane. We do it all the time and call it 'filtering'.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I don't think it's unfair for a car driver to think that cyclists might be able to pass a stopped vehicle without moving to an adjacent lane. We do it all the time and call it 'filtering'.

The important difference is that cyclists can choose to filter when they think it's safe to do so. Other vehicles are not in a position to judge whether a cyclist is happy to filter, so the drivers need to follow the HC and leave enough space for cyclists to get around obstacles.

No, but one thing that helps a driver to anticipate what a cyclist intends to do is signalling. Vine didn't signal (or didn't until he was pretty much into the adjacent lane) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think he wasn't intended intending to change lane. Vine could have stayed in the left hand lane, and he didn't signal that he was changing lanes until very late into the manoeuvre.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

No, but one thing that helps a driver to anticipate what a cyclist intends to do is signalling. Vine didn't signal (or didn't until he was pretty much into the adjacent lane) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think he wasn't intended intending to change lane. Vine could have stayed in the left hand lane, and he didn't signal that he was changing lanes until very late into the manoeuvre.

It would indeed be reasonable to think that Vine might have stayed in lane, but even so, the overtake wouldn't have left enough room for the upcoming obstruction. It was poor/lazy anticipation by the taxi driver which is evidenced by the taxi not making it any further than to the next queue of traffic.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I don't think it's unfair for a car driver to think that cyclists might be able to pass a stopped vehicle without moving to an adjacent lane.

At this point in the road, there are no marked lanes. It is just a wide section of road with a marked bus stop.

https://goo.gl/maps/AAcjBXvKMvSZZ1B47

If we can "appear out of nowhere" why can't we "tunnel" through parked vehicles too.

An acquantance tried that.  She said it hurt and the broken glass made a mess of her jacket.

ktache wrote:

If we can "appear out of nowhere" why can't we "tunnel" through parked vehicles too.

I wonder if I could fit an oscillation overthruster on my bike? 

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I think Jeremy Vine is almost always bang on, but indicating so late certainly didn't help that situation.

It's the responsibility of the taxi driver to assess what is happening ahead and not make the dangerous overtake, apportioning any blame to the cyclist for not signalling at a very specific time is wrong as the operation of steering and gear changing (and brakes) is done by the hand that would need to signal. Following vehicle operators must be mindful of this in this situation. HC mentions that cyclists may move unpredicatable due road imperfections etc.

Also, Vine lets the taxi that was in the outer lane past then shoulder-checks 3 times as he starts to change lane approaching the parked taxi.
Quite obviousy where the two brompton riders were going but idiot taxi driver is a dangerous impantient bully who wants to stop at the next queue sooner and doesn't care if he endangerous vulnerable road users to do so.

Vine does move fully into the other lane though - I think he should but some cyclists would be happy to stay in the left hand lane and cycle closer to the stopped vehicle in much the same way that cyclists filter past stopped cars, just on the offside rather than nearside. If Vine had indicated (which he should have done iaw rule 103 of the highway code) he would have made his intention clear. I don't see that needing to do multiple things with the same hand is in any way relevant, unless you are saying that cycling is inherently dangerous because you can't do everything concurrently. The 'change gear and indicate' issue you present also applies to right-hand-drive manual vehicles, but most drivers seem to manage that just fine. The problem must be compounded in BMWs, Audis, Bentleys and the like because I rarely see their indicators in use.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Vine does move fully into the other lane though - I think he should but some cyclists would be happy to stay in the left hand lane and cycle closer to the stopped vehicle in much the same way that cyclists filter past stopped cars, just on the offside rather than nearside. If Vine had indicated (which he should have done iaw rule 103 of the highway code) he would have made his intention clear. I don't see that needing to do multiple things with the same hand is in any way relevant, unless you are saying that cycling is inherently dangerous because you can't do everything concurrently. The 'change gear and indicate' issue you present also applies to right-hand-drive manual vehicles, but most drivers seem to manage that just fine. The problem must be compounded in BMWs, Audis, Bentleys and the like because I rarely see their indicators in use.

The issue with indicating whilst cycling is that you need to remove your hand from the front wheel brake and also reduce your control of the handlebars. You should indicate where possible, but not at the expense of control, so potholes, or iron works can be reasons why you'd want to indicate late if at all. For passing a parked vehicle, I usually just do a shoulder check and any following vehicles should interpret that to mean that I'm pulling over. Surely indicating in a car is just flicking a switch and doesn't require your hand to be occupied all the time that you're indicating?

hawkinspeter wrote:

You should indicate where possible, but not at the expense of control

That's not what the Highway Code says.  Rule 103 says "You should always [...] use them [signals] to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off".

Saying that a cyclist doesn't need to use hand signals to indicate a change of course (e.g. moving from one lane into another) but at the same time insisting that cars leave enough room when overtaking is essentially saying that cyclists can choose to ignore rule 103 but cars absolutely cannot choose to ignore rule 163.  It's a weird double-think that makes no sense.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You should indicate where possible, but not at the expense of control

That's not what the Highway Code says.  Rule 103 says "You should always [...] use them [signals] to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off".

Saying that a cyclist doesn't need to use hand signals to indicate a change of course (e.g. moving from one lane into another) but at the same time insisting that cars leave enough room when overtaking is essentially saying that cyclists can choose to ignore rule 103 but cars absolutely cannot choose to ignore rule 163.  It's a weird double-think that makes no sense.

Well rule 66 states:

You should ... avoid any actions that could reduce your control of your cycle

So, it's a trade-off between clearly showing your intention (which a shoulder check should do) and not compromising your control. Ultimately, the HC is about how to try to avoid collisions and leaving room for other road users is all about having a margin of error for when things don't go as planned.

Vehicles not indicating is fairly common on the roads, and although it's certainly helpful and recommended to signal appropriately, you shouldn't drive/cycle assuming that indicators are anything more than 'just an indication'.

Going back to Vine, it should have been very obvious to the taxi driver that there's an obstruction just up ahead, so it wasn't good driving to choose to overtake there. If I was cycling where the taxi was and a taxi was proceeding where Vine was, then I'd have been anticipating the taxi needing to pull out.

Also, in terms of obeying the 'should' recommendations in the HC, the ones that endanger others are of a higher priority than any others. Leaving space for cyclists is something that should always be obeyed if we want to reduce the fatalities out there.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Well rule 66 states:

You should ... avoid any actions that could reduce your control of your cycle

So, it's a trade-off

I don't think it is a trade-off.  It's interesting that you think the two options are:

1. Keep both hands on the handlebars and maintain control of you bicycle.

2. Take one hand off your handlebars and lose control of your bicycle.

Surely, slowing down, stopping and/or anticipating hazards earlier would be  equally good options?

And there aren't any rules that inherently endanger people any more than others.  It all depends on the situation at hand.

But just to re-iterate the point, a cyclist should use hand signals to change lanes (amongst other things).

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I don't think it is a trade-off.  It's interesting that you think the two options are:

1. Keep both hands on the handlebars and maintain control of you bicycle.

2. Take one hand off your handlebars and lose control of your bicycle.

Surely, slowing down, stopping and/or anticipating hazards earlier would be  equally good options?

And there aren't any rules that inherently endanger people any more than others.  It all depends on the situation at hand.

But just to re-iterate the point, a cyclist should use hand signals to change lanes (amongst other things).

Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.

If the conditions make you think that you'll have reduced control by signalling right or you anticipate needing to use the front brake, then it's probably best to keep control. Most of the time, that's not an issue, so yes, always signal where it's not ambiguous or misleading.

There most definitely are rules that endanger people more than others - Rule 17 about pedestrians wearing reflectives at night is clearly far less of a danger to others than Rule 162 about safe overtaking.

I did originally post that personally I would like to think that I would have anticipated the issue and either slowed to allow the taxi to overtake or taken the lane earlier. It wasn't the best maneouvre by Vine.

hawkinspeter wrote:

If the conditions make you think that you'll have reduced control by signalling right or you anticipate needing to use the front brake, then it's probably best to keep control.

If the conditions are such that doing something you are required to by the highway code causes you to lose control, it's probably better to get off and walk.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I would like to think that I would have anticipated the issue and either slowed to allow the taxi to overtake or taken the lane earlier. It wasn't the best maneouvre by Vine.

On this I agree completely.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

If the conditions are such that doing something you are required to by the highway code causes you to lose control, it's probably better to get off and walk.

Possibly, but with the state of the roads, you never know when you might suddenly see a pothole and decide to keep both hands on the bars.

A bit off-topic, but there's some junctions that I deliberately don't signal when I'm turning left to hopefully dissuade close overtakes. Sometimes it's better to sow a bit of doubt in a following vehicle's driver's mind so that they hang back a bit.