"An everyday occurrence": Driver pulls out on cyclist in very relatable clip; DIY cycle lane pops up after council removes segregated infra; G's Cycling Trust; BathLive readers LOVE active travel; Alt Tour film; Strange kit release + more on the live blog

Unless your agenda is to try and blame the cyclist again.

I never blamed the cyclists. Perhaps read my posts and try to show some evidence - or consider stopping the agression instead.

CycleGaz already answered that in the twitter link.

Well as far as anyone can answer WHY unless CG somehow interviewed them afterwards.

anke wrote:

A driver acting just on reflexes is a danger to everyone.

Why did you add the "JUST" to my statement? I never wrote about acting "JUST" on reflexes.

But coming back to the topic: People complained about the poor behaviour of the driver of the white car. I made a comment that this behaviour was poor, but should have been expected by the cyclist.

I believe that just complaining, amongst cyclists, won't help anyone. Learning from these videos, however, is a great way of improving our own cycling and our awarenes of potential dangers. And this is the spirit I'm writing in. 

But I'm not stopping anyone from complaining or whinging about a driver in video...

I added 'JUST' to highlight the absurdity and danger of driving and not thinking about what you are doing. Possibly the most important time to be thinking and paying attention is when you are performing a traffic maneouvre, such as pulling out from a side road. Do you consider the driver was thinking about the danger they pose to other road users with their lack of observation?

Why did you mention drivers acting on reflexes if you actually meant drivers acting on careful consideration?

Do you apply careful consideration before hitting the emergency break (lever or pedal)? Do you apply careful consideration about turning that handlebar to the left when leaning to the right? Do you apply careful consideration when signalling a turn (hands or indicator)?

If you carefully think about these things, you might be missing the time to think about more important questions like "can I pull out of the side road safely now or not"...

Generally, the situations that require an emergency brake are very self-evident and you've already gone past the point of careful consideration (or the person causing the danger did not carefully consider what they are doing).

When turning, I take into consideration the road surface - especially if there are ironworks and/or potholes - you do not want to be turning whilst also negotiating a hazard.

Always give careful consideration when performing a turn/maneouvre. If you're driving, then there's the Mirror-Signal-(Mirror)-Maneouvre to be followed. Performing a turn on auto-pilot is dangerous and inconsiderate.

I don't think you're really grasping that the driver of the white car was the only person creating a dangerous situation here, so I shan't bother replying to you anymore.

Have a good day™

I don't think you're really grasping that the driver of the white car was the only person creating a dangerous situation here, so I shan't bother replying to you anymore.

It seems you're not grasping that I never doubted that the driver of the car was creating the dangerous situation. You could read my posts and would have to agree.

I merely noted that the danger created by the white car could be (and has been) reduced by wise actions of the cyclist - which included foreseeing the stupid move by the white car.

I assume you are just bored today.

You keep repeating what the cyclist should have expected without realising that they could stop in the distance they could see and from their actions were aware of the hazard and mitigated it.

Do you have anything useful to contribute or are you just trying to play the contrarian?

Well, it seems I was the only one to not jump on the "what an idiot in the white car" bandwagen - by trying to consider the situation rather than just repeating the self-evident. 

As a result, I attracted a lot of aggressive responses - and defended my point.

Looking up at your comments, I am tempted to copy your question: "Do you have anything useful to contribute?"

Well, if you had read my comments, you would have read CGs comments and not even bothered with your "I'm trying to understand WHY the driver has reacted in the WRONG way".

And I will reiterate that if you think the scenario is confusing, then please don't drive.

Well, if you had read my comments, you would have read CGs comments and not even bothered with your "I'm trying to understand WHY the driver has reacted in the WRONG way".

The aggressive comments that you made AFTER my original post would have stopped me from making my original post?

That wasn't your original post though was it.

You have come up with a fairly consistent theme of blaming the cyclist whilst trying to claim not to be.

I have not blamed the cyclist anywhere - please produce some evidence or consider stopping the aggression. My original post started in the following way:

>>

anke | 43 posts | 8 hours ago. 2 likes 

Poor driving by the white car. But the situation was not very clear for anyone (cross-roads, congestian, pedestrian crossing), and the difference in speed made the situation hard to predict for the frustrated and stressed (they all are) driver.

anke wrote:

Well, it seems I was the only one to not jump on the "what an idiot in the white car" bandwagen - by trying to consider the situation rather than just repeating the self-evident. 

You said you tried to consider the situation?

The cyclist was riding in such a way that they were able to successfully avoid a collision despite the actions of an inattentive driver who was more focussed on gaining a few seconds.  Yet you continue to critique the actions of the cyclist saying he could have done more.

You say you are trying to figure out why the driver did what they did.... when it's clear that they were not paying attention..... then you say things like "try and put yourself in the position of an annoyed frustrated driver" as if that is some kind of excuse for their actions, or to try and garner sympathy for the driver.

Or "that the situation was not simple and perhaps not clear for the motorist, and that taking good care was required on all sides to avoid an accident".  Whereas the situation is incredibly simple for the motorist.  They approached a give way junction and proceeded onto a main road without giving way to the road users who had priority.

"Whereas the situation is incredibly simple for the motorist.  They approached a give way junction and proceeded onto a main road without giving way to the road users who had priority."

Simple? Really?

One fast mover (bike) in almost stationary traffic? The car ahead of the cross roads stopped to invite the white car in (now or never)? A cyclist who was poorly visible while moving from a dark road, between trees and cars? A cyclist who had to stop anyway for the cross-roads? An (almost) invisible bike-lane on the cross roads, with awkward zig zag markings being just discussed here? A cyclist who was, perhaps, faster than what our driver might be used to?

Great if that's what simple to you - but it might not be for most motorists...

anke wrote:

Simple? Really?

One fast mover (bike) in almost stationary traffic? The car ahead of the cross roads stopped to invite the white car in (now or never)? A cyclist who was poorly visible while moving from a dark road, between trees and cars? A cyclist who had to stop anyway for the cross-roads? An (almost) invisible bike-lane on the cross roads, with awkward zig zag markings being just discussed here? A cyclist who was, perhaps, faster than what our driver might be used to?

Great if that's what simple to you - but it might not be for most motorists...

Yes simple it should be simple for every single driver of a vehicle or they should not be driving. I mean it's put in really simple words in the highway code for them

Rule 170
Take extra care at junctions. You should watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see.

Rule 172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

If they cannot understand simple straightforward things like that they should not be driving.

Rule 170 is quite clear it puts the responsibility for taking care on the vehicle pulling out from the junction.  And I'm pretty certain I was taught by my driving instructor that if I am carrying out a maneuver, such as pulling out of a junction, that it is MY responsibilty to ensure that I carry the maneuver out safely.

anke wrote:

"Whereas the situation is incredibly simple for the motorist.  They approached a give way junction and proceeded onto a main road without giving way to the road users who had priority."

Simple? Really?

One fast mover (bike) in almost stationary traffic? The car ahead of the cross roads stopped to invite the white car in (now or never)? A cyclist who was poorly visible while moving from a dark road, between trees and cars? A cyclist who had to stop anyway for the cross-roads? An (almost) invisible bike-lane on the cross roads, with awkward zig zag markings being just discussed here? A cyclist who was, perhaps, faster than what our driver might be used to?

Great if that's what simple to you - but it might not be for most motorists...

Based on that, I think your hypothetical motorist really ought to just hand in their licence.

anke wrote:

A cyclist who was poorly visible while moving from a dark road, between trees and cars?

You're just making stuff up now. You can have no idea whatsoever how visible the cyclist was; what is clear from the video is that a) he had a strobing front light on, b) even if "dark roads, trees and cars" were in any way an excuse for not seeing him (they aren't), he was out and in clear line of sight of the driver for at least 15 metres/4 seconds before the driver pulled out, and c) he was 3m away when the driver rolled over the stop line. The driver didn't see him because s/he didn't look, it's as simple as that.

Very well thought out, considered and balanced comment - such a shame the Stasi are already out in force 

I think you will find the collective term here is 'police haters' (except for nmotd 646 where everyone's account was hacked).

...yes, I had not expected this reaction!

Not sure what's confusing about giving way at a dashed line or, in this case, 2 dashed lines. Maybe all these junctions should be box junctions with cameras or there should be an offence of blocking a cycle lane.

...just put yourself in the position of an annoyed, frustrated motorist stuck in a car, trying to finally make it onto the main road before the oncoming traffic arrives.

And again: on my bike, I might have even waved the motorist in to finally join the main road - knowing that I'd have to stop in any case (at the pedestrian's crossing). This type of interaction keeps motorists happy and friendly - and enourages them to take good care of cyclists. 

anke wrote:

...just put yourself in the position of an annoyed, frustrated motorist stuck in a car, trying to finally make it onto the main road before the oncoming traffic arrives.

And again: on my bike, I might have even waved the motorist in to finally join the main road - knowing that I'd have to stop in any case (at the pedestrian's crossing). This type of interaction keeps motorists happy and friendly - and enourages them to take good care of cyclists. 

I bet you'd be doffing your cap as you come to a stop to allow the car to block the cycle lane.

I don't really understand why you're trying to find excuses for dangerous driving - are there not enough drivers and cars on the road already? Maybe the best bet would be to remove those drivers that just have an emotional reaction (annoyance, frustration) to driving conditions and act instinctively without giving any thought to what they are doing. It's especially poor driving when there's the clear marking "give way to traffic on major road" at the end of that side road.

You're all right - but being right in traffic is a good way for shortening one's life... Considering the weaknesses, failings, or emotional reactions of motorists can help staying alive. Complaining about these failings in a forum that is not read by motorists will not help anyone.

So, I'm not excusing the motorist - I'm just pointing out why his/her behaviour was, unfortunately, to be expected, and that a cyclist should be prepared for this poor behaviour. This is a lesson we can take from these videos, and how we can benefit from such videos.

By the way, we've been mostly missing that the motor traffic on the main road had stopped ahead of the cross roads for the sole purpose of letting the traffic enter from the side road. Our cyclist didn't stop. Which is all within his/her rights, but not really polite and, as we've seen, more dangerous than also stopping there. 

What a load of tripe!

Quote:

By the way, we've been mostly missing that the motor traffic on the main road had stopped ahead of the cross roads for the sole purpose of letting the traffic enter from the side road.

Factually incorrect - the traffic had stopped due to the pedestrian crossing.

Quote:

Our cyclist didn't stop.

Why on earth would a cyclist want to cede priority at each and every side road? Presumably you'll play the 'might is right' card again, but that's just a childish attitude and does nothing to help with road safety.

You still haven't noticed: The car past the cross roads had stopped because of the pedestrian crossing. The car following (on the main road)  actually stopped ahead of the cross roads, to let traffic from the side road join the main road - instead of driving on (like our cyclist) and inhibiting the side road traffic from entering.

anke wrote:

You still haven't noticed: The car past the cross roads had stopped because of the pedestrian crossing. The car following (on the main road)  actually stopped ahead of the cross roads, to let traffic from the side road join the main road - instead of driving on (like our cyclist) and inhibiting the side road traffic from entering.

Your interpretation continues to try and blame the cyclist for not slowing down.  The car following on the main road (as you described it) stopped to keep the junction clear for cars wanting to turn from the opposite carriageway on the main road into the side road.

And the cyclist would not have inhibited the side road traffic from entering because they would have been able to clear the junction, therefore they were not doing anything incorrect in their actions.

And my final point..... just because someone has left a gap that you might be able to pull out into doesn't absolve you of any responsibility for checking whether it is safe to go.

To turn it round, imagine the black car was not there, and the driver of the white car had focussed all of their attention on the silver car letting them out of the junciton.... and had accelerated out of the junction without also checking that the pedestrian crossing was clear and had hit the pedestrian... would you say that the driver was at fault or the pedestrian?

Your interpretation continues to try and blame the cyclist for not slowing down. 

No. I didn't blame him/her. Go through my posts, I never wrote that the cyclist was at fault. I always agreed that the driver of the white car was. (I'd just have advised the cyclist to stop earlier - ahead of the cross roads, where the trailing cars had stopped.)

To turn it round, imagine the black car was not there,

It was. 

anke wrote:

You still haven't noticed: The car past the cross roads had stopped because of the pedestrian crossing. The car following (on the main road)  actually stopped ahead of the cross roads, to let traffic from the side road join the main road - instead of driving on (like our cyclist) and inhibiting the side road traffic from entering.

The driver was avoiding blocking the junction (rightly so) which would prevent vehicles from turning into the side road. They also happened to be "letting out" a car, but that is merely incidental and it's very misleading to think that another driver can give permission for a driver to pull carelessly out of a side road - the onus is still on the driver performing a maneouvre to do it safely and not force other traffic to slow or stop to avoid a collision.

The cyclist would not have been obstructing the side road as they had a clear lane in front of them - until the white car driver suddenly blocked it.

I will also sometimes allow drivers into / out of side streets in this sort of situation, but I'm not sure why you're talking about "finally" making it on to the main road as if they had been waiting - the offending driver hasn't even arrived at the junction at the start of this clip. They arrive, wait momentarily while the driver in front clears the junction, then join the main road immediately, without looking for / noticing / giving due consideration to the cyclist.