Cyclist threatened with legal action for posting video of close pass by driver in company-branded van

The company's only got 3 employees and that would include the director, assuming the director's drawing pay. (Source: company accounts at Companies House.) Chances are the director was driving.

cyclist247 wrote:

I cycle to and from work everyday.

Sure!

Another non-cyclist account, by the look of it. Are they all run by the same individual?

"the cyclist baited the driver" - did they bare their arse? FFS.

The next one that tries this kind bullshit gets a Transit door flung open in their gammony face.

Simon E wrote:

Another non-cyclist account, by the look of it. Are they all run by the same individual?

There certainly seems to have been a fine crop of them springing up over the last couple of days, at least half-a-dozen fairly blatant new "as a cyclist myself" trolling accounts have appeared.

cyclist247 wrote:

I cycle to and from work everyday. Considering the dangers involved, It's not about being right, it's about being safe and not putting yourself at risk v cars. Plan for drivers to make mistakes. This specific example shows ample driver perceived room on the left for the cyclist to use, but they stay out in the road until the very last opportunity, clearly trying to block the vehicle behind. Road surface on the left looks fine and the cyclist ahead pulls left earlier. Driver was wrong to overtake, BUT the cyclist baited the driver. You're highly unlikely to ever get enough room left by a car on these sort of roads, this example isn't that bad. Its london, if you can't hack it, take the train! 

Today I learned that cycling at the motorised speed limit (20mph) is now considered to be driver baiting.

So, on the one hand you've got a driver ignoring the "don't overtake cyclists" sign, speeding and performing a dangerous close pass on a vulnerable road user for sod all gain. On the other hand, you've got a cyclist just getting from A to B and getting accused of "baiting"!

Presumably, you give the "can't hack it" advice to anyone that's a victim of violent crime.

FFS

You don't cycle to and from work every day. Has mumsnet kicked you off their forum, is that why you are here?

Worth pointing out, as cyclist247 might simply be an inexperienced road user, that the cyclist in the video has taken primary prior to the road narrowing, in order to signal to motorists not to overtake at that point, since there is insufficient room to do so. This is good roadcraft on the part of the cyclist.

cyclist247 might simply be an inexperienced road user

Although he recommends himself as a very experienced daily commuting cyclist. He could also be another manifestation of a Multiple Personality Disorder.

The cyclist did not take primary at all, as he was cycling on the line marking, virtually inviting a close pass, rather than preventing one..

brogs, a cyclist putting themselves in the way of the vehicle isn't good road craft - it's relying on a good driving to avoid an accident. cycling in london as I said previously, is not a case of right or wrong but cycling as safely as possible. Driving standards will continue be crap and the only outcome cyclists can control is looking after themselves. It's exactly the same for motorbikes where the same principle applies. I started an account due to the anti-driver bias on this thread. Yes, the driver made a mistake, but the cyclist had a lot of space on the left they chose not to use. 

Not only have you made factual errors

HC 72

1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in

the following situations

• on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
• in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake
• at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you

You are also victim blaming

And contradictory

"Driving standards will continue be crap"

"anti-driver bias on this thread"

cyclist247 wrote:

brogs, a cyclist putting themselves in the way of the vehicle isn't good road craft - it's relying on a good driving to avoid an accident. cycling in london as I said previously, is not a case of right or wrong but cycling as safely as possible. Driving standards will continue be crap and the only outcome cyclists can control is looking after themselves. It's exactly the same for motorbikes where the same principle applies. I started an account due to the anti-driver bias on this thread. Yes, the driver made a mistake, but the cyclist had a lot of space on the left they chose not to use. 

There's very good reasons for the anti-driver bias in this instance. There's the issue of the completely unforced bad driving - speeding, overtaking after a specific "don't overtake cyclists" sign and a close-pass (maybe that's why the sign was there?) and the driver could have anticipated that the overtake was pointless if they'd looked ahead. To follow up the bad driving, the company then issues an unneccessarily aggressive letter that doesn't have any sane basis for it - maybe the letter writer and the driver are the same person.

You do realise that the space on the left wasn't eligible for use by the cyclist as it's a taxi rank, don't you?

cyclist247 wrote:

brogs, a cyclist putting themselves in the way of the vehicle isn't good road craft - it's relying on a good driving to avoid an accident. cycling in london as I said previously, is not a case of right or wrong but cycling as safely as possible. Driving standards will continue be crap and the only outcome cyclists can control is looking after themselves. It's exactly the same for motorbikes where the same principle applies. I started an account due to the anti-driver bias on this thread. Yes, the driver made a mistake, but the cyclist had a lot of space on the left they chose not to use. 

Putting yourself in the middle of the lane gives you the best chance to be seen by the driver of the vehicle behind you, if they still drive into you they are probably just a psycopath who is out to kill you wherever you ride!

I cycle to and from work everyday. Yet you blame the cyclist Buy a bike and ride it don't just write BS

If you ride in London every day you might want to read TfL's advice to cyclists, which advises doing exactly as this cyclist was doing and 'taking the lane'.

But tbf gr0g is right, the guy on the bike is on or near the center line between two lanes, they aren't taking a lane there by positioning.

You shouldn't have to ride like that to stop drivers passing you, but I don't think prime has applied here

Except for all of the reasons its stupid that's a great argument. 

The cyclist was in the only travel lane (the area to the left being a taxi rank, not a travel lane) which was not wide enough to facilitate a safe overtake no matter the rider's position.

The cyclist was travelling at the 20mph speed limit so there was no need for the overtake no matter where on the road he was positioned. Even if he was riding the same speed on the pavement or a completely separate road, the van driver would still have been breaking the law by passing at the speed he did. 

Cycling-g wrote:

I'm actually in sympathy with the company on this one. The cyclist has absolutely no need to be that far out into the road. He could easily have been further left without being anywhere near the kerb leaving room for other vehicles to safely pass. We are in danger of martyr syndrome and entitlement if we want to defend this.

As pointed out below by myself and others, the "lane" to the left is a taxi rank and so should not be ridden in, the cyclist is as far left in the only active lane as it's possible to be (if I was going to be critical I'd say they were too far left and should have asserted their right to take the lane), the driver is wilfully ignoring the "narrow lanes do not overtake cyclists" sign, and driver is overtaking at an illegal speed. So I would suggest your "sympathy" for the company is rather foolishly misplaced.

Rendel Harris wrote:

As pointed out below by myself and others, the "lane" to the left is a taxi rank

It is not, there are no markations or signage to suggest that the area within the line to the kerb has any use at all; the line is actually a lane boundary line (albeit supposed to be a temporary one) as the area is usually used for overflow for the construction workers for the ongoing sewer works just a couple of hundred yards further down. (this actually makes the drivers actions worse and further cements the cyclist's actions as proper) The white box forms part of the lane narrowing and therefore the line defines the permitted region for traffic. There is confusion because the line stops suddenly, and then there is another white box area narrowing the lane, with another line following (this time filled with construction barriers).  Previously that section was filled with storage containers and cordoned off with construction barriers.

Looking on Google Maps Street View, all the road markings on the stretch surrounding the works are all over the place. They are decipherable however you need to observe and process all the infrastructure to make sense of it. That might take longer than the time it takes to physically drive through the stretch of road if you are unfamiliar with it.

The rest of your statement, however is accurate. As the line is an active lane boundary, the cyclist's position is in the correct area, although perhaps further left than ideal. The van driver was wrong to overtake on 2 fronts - both on the signage prohibiting overtaking on that stretch of road, and in regards to speeding.

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

It is not, there are no markations or signage to suggest that the area within the line to the kerb has any use at all; the line is actually a lane boundary line (albeit supposed to be a temporary one) as the area is usually used for overflow for the construction workers for the ongoing sewer works just a couple of hundred yards further down.

It's both, it's used mainly for construction vehicles but during the Chelsea Flower Show it becomes a taxi rank. Not sure what date this video is. It certainly is a mess signage wise which makes the cyclist's decision to stay out of it all the more understandable and sensible.

This has already been addressed in the thread several times by multiple posters.

Did you not bother to read what has already been posted ? Or could you simply not address the arguments put forward ?

Cycling-g there are a couple of problems with this point of view. Firstly, there is either sufficient room for an overtake or there isn't. It doesn't matter what road position the cyclist is taking. The van is the overtaking vehicle and has a duty of care to ensure there is sufficient room for the overtake, which there wasn't. Secondly, the cyclist is quite clearly taking primary ahead of the road narrowing to signal to motorists not to overtake. That is very good roadcraft.

The threat wasn't made by a lawyer. A Lawyer on YouTube discussed the claim of legal action and why it is unwarranted, and the cyclist is within their right to post the video.

Pretty sure bluffing people on the law is the first tool a practicing lawyer learns!  (The second is probably "but use that with extreme caution around more experienced lawyers and indeed judges...")