"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

quiff wrote:

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. 

Exactly..... anke is just clutching at straws trying hard to frantically justify the actions of a car.....

I'm just wondering..... I've not seen many posts from nicmason of late........ what are the chances he's been banned and created anke with a new e-mail address?

I have no idea who nicmason is or was - are you clutching at a straw here...

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.

What has that got to do with anything?  Do you think that a police officer attending an assault should put themselves in the position of the annoyed frustrated person who has assaulted the victim to see what they would have done?  That's not the way the law works I'm afraid.

If the driver had waited like they were supposed to do, the cyclist would have been past them and they would still have had ample opportunity to pull out of the junction ahead of the silver car.

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. 

Assuming that there was no cyclist following behind (which clearly I can't know) the driver gained absolutely nothing by pulling out; and would have gained absolutely nothing by the cyclist waving them out.  They would still be able to pull out into the same position in the queue after the cyclist had gone past, because the other cars would not yet have moved.

Assuming that there was no cyclist following behind (which clearly I can't know) the driver gained absolutely nothing by pulling out

I find this hard to judge from a video, but would assume that this was not what the driver was thinking...

anke wrote:

Steve K wrote:

Assuming that there was no cyclist following behind (which clearly I can't know) the driver gained absolutely nothing by pulling out

I find this hard to judge from a video, but would assume that this was not what the driver was thinking...

Your mistake may be assuming that the driver was thinking.

You have very low standards and expectations. Try to dream bigger.

I like your comment - but I'd rather not dream in a road-crash induced coma...

anke wrote:

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. The driver slowly pulled out before the bike was close enough to be seen well - in traffic that moved so slowly and chaotically that the driver had to focus on things happening nearby. After getting going, the driver probably had to focus on the car in front, which might have stopped at any time. So, no excuses for the white cars -- but many reasons for expecting its driver to make a mistake in a confusing situation.

And then, the bike had to stop anyway at the pedestrian's crossing - so no kinetic energy was wasted for slowing down for the white car. If roles were swapped (white car on main road, bike pulling in from side road), we might have even considered this a mild case of "must get in front". Stretching things, you might also argue that the white car actually "shielded" the pedestrian crossing from the bike traffic...

In summary: Yep, white car did someting slightly, stupid, a little ignorant and potentially dangerous, but in a highly confusing situation. The cyclist responded correctly by adjusting the speed (he had to stop at the pedestrian's crossing anyway), and things were resolved.

In the end, this is how we have to deal with confusing situations in traffic.

The rider probably learned to be even more carful in such confusing situations, the driver probably learned to watch out more for (unexpected) cyclists.

Interesting how a driver cannot see a cyclist well..... yet in the video the cyclist has an unobstructed view of the car for several seconds before the driver pulls out.  What you actually meant was that the driver did not look to see if there was a cyclist merely looked at the gap left by the silver car at the junction and had to pull out.

And I say they never looked with a great deal of confidence because once the black car in front of them moved they pulled forward over the give way line assuming that the carriageway was clear without slowing down or stopping to look.

The traffic was not moving slowly or chaotically, the traffic was stopped.  And after getting going they had to focus on the car in front in case it stopped?  The car that pulled out of the junction in front of it was long gone before the white car reached the give way line, and the other vehicle was already stopped at the pedestrian crossing.  So the driver of the white car was doing a complete MGIF while there is still a gap there.

And lets see if I understand you.... just because the cylcist may have had to stop at the pedestrian crossing somehow absolves the driver of pulling out of a junction without looking?

If you find situations like that confusing, take your driving license, pop it in an envelope addressed to the DVLA in Swansea saying you are not capable of driving a car safely.

Interesting how a driver cannot see a cyclist well..... yet in the video the cyclist has an unobstructed view of the car for several seconds before the driver pulls out. 

The cyclist arrived from a dark, tree-lined road, moving past stationary vehicles, on a very poorly marked bike-track. So, the cyclist did the right thing and slowed down, expecting poor behaviour from the car.

And I say they never looked with a great deal of confidence

They might have just looked too early - at a time suitable for the (almost) stationary cars but not for a moving bike.

The traffic was not moving slowly or chaotically, the traffic was stopped.  And after getting going they had to focus on the car in front in case it stopped?  The car that pulled out of the junction in front of it was long gone before the white car reached the give way line, 

Well, car's should keep some separation, shouldn't they? On bikes, we've become used to much quicker reaction and lower distances (unfortunately, largely due to dangerous motorists).

And lets see if I understand you.... just because the cylcist may have had to stop at the pedestrian crossing somehow absolves the driver of pulling out of a junction without looking?

Given the pedestrian crossing, the driver might have well assumed that any traffic would arrive slowly. Indeed, the car on the main road had stopped to let the cars enter the main road. (Which is polite and good practice - and was not noticed or copied by our cyclilst) -- Which, nevertheless, does not absolve the driver of the white car from endangering the cyclist.

If you find situations like that confusing, take your driving license, pop it in an envelope addressed to the DVLA in Swansea saying you are not capable of driving a car safely.

You must be a super driver, unless you're a little too convinced by your driving/riding skill... Did you notice (at first glance) that the cycle lane markings were worn off, poor and hardly visible on the wet road? Did you notice that the bike entered the cross-roads from a dark road, poorly visible between tress, signage and stationary cars? Did you notice that a pedestrian was crossing the road right at this point? Did you notice that drivers were desperate to get on the main road before the other cars will arrive again (traffic had stopped temporarily)? And did you even notice that the car on the main road had stopped (politely) to let other cars enter the main road (and that the cyclist just passed by the stopped cars - less polite and potentially dangerous in this situation)?

If you've noticed all of this, with time left to process the information and to act accordingly in traffic, well done. If you didn't, consider the situation confusing, slow down in time, and approach the situation carefully.

anke wrote:

If you find situations like that confusing, take your driving license, pop it in an envelope addressed to the DVLA in Swansea saying you are not capable of driving a car safely.

You must be a super driver, unless you're a little too convinced by your driving/riding skill... Did you notice (at first glance) that the cycle lane markings were worn off, poor and hardly visible on the wet road? Did you notice that the bike entered the cross-roads from a dark road, poorly visible between tress, signage and stationary cars? Did you notice that a pedestrian was crossing the road right at this point? Did you notice that drivers were desperate to get on the main road before the other cars will arrive again (traffic had stopped temporarily)? And did you even notice that the car on the main road had stopped (politely) to let other cars enter the main road (and that the cyclist just passed by the stopped cars - less polite and potentially dangerous in this situation)?

If you've noticed all of this, with time left to process the information and to act accordingly in traffic, well done. If you didn't, consider the situation confusing, slow down in time, and approach the situation carefully.

In response to your questions. 

1. Yes I noticed the lane markings worn off.
2. I noticed that the cyclist could clearly see the car for several seconds before the car cleared the junction, and that the cyclist had a high intensity flashing front light
3. I noticed the pedestrian crossing the road in front of the black car.
4. No the cars were not desperate to get onto the main road.... the white car in question drove into frame as the cyclist was approaching the same junction
5. The car on the main road had stopped not to let cars out of the side road but to ensure that cars could leave the main road and go into the side road and as a byproduct would let a car or two out of the side road onto the main road.
6. Yes I noticed all of that and would have been able to react accordingly.

but lets get this straight you are conflagrating the responsibility of the driver with the responsibility of the cyclist and trying to blame the driver's failing on the cyclist and you have a supporter in doing that in Nigel Garrage.

Nigel Garage wrote:

No, I'm pointing out that the cyclist was riding carelessly. No one has said that the white car didn't make a mistake, but the driver could very well have inadvertently prevented a serious collision between the cyclist and the innocent pedestrian crossing the zebra crossing.

How was the cyclist riding carelessly?

1. they were riding in a cycle lane
2. they were riding at a speed that they were able to avoid colliding with the car despite the car being the one entirely in the wrong.
3. The had appropriate lights for the conditions

As for your last point you again have taken your default position that the cyclist was going to plow through the pedstrian crossing without slowing down despite their view of the crossing being obstructed by other vehicles..... and tried to make it look like the driver was some kind of martyr by selflessly slowing down the hooligan on a bike on the approach to a pedestrian crossing.

Nigel Garage wrote:

No, I'm pointing out that the cyclist was riding carelessly. No one has said that the white car didn't make a mistake, but the driver could very well have inadvertently prevented a serious collision between the cyclist and the innocent pedestrian crossing the zebra crossing.

Seriously, how do you work that out?  In what way was he riding carelessly? The cyclist was able - despite the dangerous driving by the white car - to avoid any collision quite comfortably; why on earth would you therefore conclude that he would not have been able to stop for the pedestrian crossing?

but lets get this straight you are conflagrating the responsibility of the driver with the responsibility of the cyclist and trying to blame the driver's failing on the cyclist

I'm not doing this. 

Is this forum a) a resource for learning about road-safety and on how to be save on a bike (even considering the many failings of motorists), or is it just b) an "opinion bubble" where we may just repeat the obvious (that a motorist did something stupid) without trying to take our lessons from it?

anke wrote:

Is this forum a) a resource for learning about road-safety and on how to be save on a bike (even considering the many failings of motorists), or is it just b) an "opinion bubble" where we may just repeat the obvious (that a motorist did something stupid) without trying to take our lessons from it?

c) a place for posing false dichotomies.

anke wrote:

Is this forum a) a resource for learning about road-safety and on how to be save on a bike (even considering the many failings of motorists), or is it just b) an "opinion bubble" where we may just repeat the obvious (that a motorist did something stupid) without trying to take our lessons from it?

That very much sounds like "If you do everything that a responsible cyclist should and still get an incident with a motorist you obviously did something wrong because you never expected/learned that the motorist would do something stupid"

That very much sounds like "If you do everything that a responsible cyclist should and still get an incident with a motorist you obviously did something wrong because you never expected/learned that the motorist would do something stupid"

...if there still is an incident (like in this video), you might not have done something wrong - but perhaps you could have done better to avoid the incident.

It's a bit like falling victim to a crime: There are certain things we all do to protect ourselves from unnecessary risks.

anke wrote:

...if there still is an incident (like in this video), you might not have done something wrong - but perhaps you could have done better to avoid the incident.

It's a bit like falling victim to a crime: There are certain things we all do to protect ourselves from unnecessary risks.

Ah so now you are making your intentions known....pure and simple victim blaming

How charming. Has "victim blaming" become synonymous with any sort of "good advice" - even if there's not even a victim...?!

anke wrote:

How charming. Has "victim blaming" become synonymous with any sort of "good advice" - even if there's not even a victim...?!

Lets address your victim blaming.....

anke wrote:

It's a bit like falling victim to a crime: There are certain things we all do to protect ourselves from unnecessary risks.

^^^ That there is 100% straight victim blaming in its implying that the victim of a crime could have done more to protect themselves

You keep trying to suggest excuses for the drivers actions and suggest that the cyclist could have done more.

And don't try to deny it because it is there in black and white in lots of your comments. Here are a few of your direct quotes where you provide excuses for the driver or suggest the cyclist could do more.  (You also use my favourite of "I'm not excusing the motorist" before you go on to give reasons as to why the did what they did...aka giving excuses for the motorist)

anke wrote:

I simply wrote my comments as I feel fellow cyclists should be aware that the situation was not simple and perhaps not clear for the motorist

anke wrote:

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.

anke wrote:

Foreseeing that a driver might also ignore a  cycle lane may be a life saver...

anke wrote:

They might have just looked too early - at a time suitable for the (almost) stationary cars but not for a moving bike.

anke wrote:

That very much sounds like "If you do everything that a responsible cyclist should and still get an incident with a motorist you obviously did something wrong because you never expected/learned that the motorist would do something stupid"

...if there still is an incident (like in this video), you might not have done something wrong - but perhaps you could have done better to avoid the incident.

It's a bit like falling victim to a crime: There are certain things we all do to protect ourselves from unnecessary risks.

I feel in the vast majority of collisions (not accidents) are the result of someone doing something wrong, and other drivers road users not making allowances for them.

In this case there was no collision because the cyclist was aware of their surroundings and took apropriate action, so there is no need for comments about what they might have done better. They did everything nevesary to avoid a collision which would have been caused by the white car.

anke wrote:

The driver slowly pulled out before the bike was close enough to be seen well

The driver crossed the stop line when the cyclist was less than a lane's width from him/her; it's clear from the reflections on the back of cars and street signs that the cyclist was carrying a strobing front light. If someone can't spot a full-grown adult cyclist with lights on from three metres away (or finds being approached by one "highly confusing", to use your phrase) that's not the minor problem you appear to be saying it is - it would lead to an immediate fail on a driving test, for a start, and rightly so.

The driver crossed the stop line when the cyclist was less than a lane's width from him/her;

...but started rolling slowly a lot earlier, and we speculated already that the driver might have looked (to her right) too early, and we also discussed why he/she might have done so...

that's not the minor problem you appear to be saying it is - it would lead to an immediate fail on a driving test, for a start, and rightly so.

I agree. But we can probably also agree that most drivers would fail a driving test at any later point in time - and that drivers, hence, are better treated like a slightly unpredictable danger...

Mixed on this. The driver almost certainly didn't look. So different timings could have seen collision and possibly injury (spoiler - not to the driver).

I'll ignore the "pedestrian" comment however I do take the point about the environment though. What we have here is:

• A road which is clearly "busy" because there's an "access road" along the left side of it.
• An advisory cycle lane (broken white line). This is where the crapness begins.
• Even the "advisory" lane gives up at the junction because there's a zebra crossing and I think these legally have to have nothing but the wavy lines for a certain distance before them (please check full legal position with kerb nerds though).
• So the motorist - even had they looked - would not find it easy to see the presence of the cycle lane because not a different colour tarmac and the markings finished before the junction.
• They might also have been watching for traffic on the "access road" as well as the main road and - had they been a bit sharper - would have picked up there was a zebra crossing immediately to their left.
• Should the driver have been competent to deal with this? Yes. Could they have expected a cyclist to be in that position regardless of markings? Yes.  Could this layout be made simpler and thus safer? Yes.
• Aside - doesn't appear to be any "infra" for cycling on the other side. This is quite common - because cyclists only go down one side of roads of course! Or rather "we will only pay for paint and so we can only squeeze one cycle lane + 2 motor vehicle lanes between the existing kerbs". Your minds are too narrow...

chrisonatrike wrote:

• Even the "advisory" lane gives up at the junction because there's a zebra crossing and I think these legally have to have nothing but the wavy lines for a certain distance before them (please check full legal position with kerb nerds though).

I think the cycle lane does continue past the junction and over the crossing - the zigzag line is further out than usual, in line with the cycle lane markings, suggesting they're intended as a lane divider rather than edge markings.

I'm going to go ahead and suggest, though, that even if that is the case, next to nobody emerging from that junction would recognise that they were meant to indicate a cycle lane.

And it's just another indication of the uselessness of bits of white paint as an attempt at 'protecting' cyclists.

I don't know why they do that with "cycle lanes" at junctions. I could understand it if they kept the cycle lane visible (e.g. with different coloured surface) across the junction, but with dashed lines to allow vehicles into and out of the side road, but to remove it entirely, but then have the zig-zag lines go by the side of the now invisible cycle lane is sending a confused message. Presumably, the zig-zags are at the edge of the roadway which implies that the cycle lane is still in effect across the side road junction.

[4 points on this, but decided not to feed the troll]

Nigel Garage wrote:

Agree with what you wrote there anke, and please don't feel put off speaking your truth by some of the troll replies. The cyclist in the clip was riding carelessly. Along with what you've already written (the white car shouldn't have pulled out but was unsighted by the street furniture), he was approaching an unsighted zebra crossing with stationary cars (indicating the presence of a pedestrian), on the hoods, head down, straining every sinew, with no intention of slowing despite the environment demanding caution. A typically self-entitled clip I'm afraid.

The problem with speaking the truth is that it actually has to be, you know, true.

1. At 4-7s on the video the white car has a completely unobstructed view and still decides to pull out

2. Head position is not shown on the video

3. If you think that cyclist was straining every sinew you are a far weaker cyclist than I would have thought

4.  Intention is not shown on the video

5.  He did slow down when the incompetent driving caused him to do so, and was obviously capable of coming to a complete stop well before the crossing.

 But you are correct that the car shouldn't have pulled out, so perhaps some learning is going on here.

Nigel, thank you for your suppport, but I don't agree entirely. The cyclist slowed down early (fingers pulling the breaks) and probably wasn't really fast - and resolved the situation well in the end. (He/she could have waited with the main traffic for letting in the traffic from the side road, but the required level of "situational awareness" might be difficult to have for motorists as for cyclists.)

I simply wrote my comments as I feel fellow cyclists should be aware 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 just complaining about motorists in videos won't save lifes.

anke wrote:

[ ... ] I simply wrote my comments as I feel fellow cyclists should be aware 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 just complaining about motorists in videos won't save lifes.

But what will definitely save lives? Luminous clothing? No. Cyclist making noise? No. Establishing eye contact? No. Cyclist following the rules and then some? No. Cyclists being "extra cautious" or "experienced"? No. Courtesy and politeness? No. Protective equipment? No.

These things may have an impact but there have been deaths where these were used and had no impact at all. (Road.cc, read all about it). And when a vehicle impacts you - because someone driving it didn't keep their side of the bargain - they're pretty meaningless.

Without designing the danger out - or reducing it much lower than present - your alternatives are to put your fingers in your ears, blame the victims, or do something about the issue. Two possibilities for that one: "remove the danger" through design - including just not having motor vehicles there. Or drivers have to accept that they are voluntarily engaging in a potentially lethal activity, that proportionately greater responsibility rests with them and that they should face sanction if they endanger or damage people or property. Even if that is just that their licence (or license in US) is revoked. (And of course that they're banged up if caught driving without it.)