Near Miss of the Day 234: Undertaking bin lorry driver

sjb2332 wrote:

I've found that a good old fashioned ' thumbs up' to a driver (for not pulling out) is far more effective than the " you're a cucking funt" approach

Did you mean to post this on another thread?  I don't see the relevence to this one.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

sjb2332 wrote:

I've found that a good old fashioned ' thumbs up' to a driver (for not pulling out) is far more effective than the " you're a cucking funt" approach

 

Did you mean to post this on another thread?  I don't see the relevence to this one.

Pedantic Pedaller wrote:

My observations of this video are:

The Bin Lorry driver's view of the cyclist was obscured, to a degree, at the T junction.

The driver did start to move out of the junction, but then stopped when the cyclist was in clear view, and stopped within the give way lines of the junction.

The cyclist refers to the driver as a f*cking C U Next Tuesday.

hirsute wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

sjb2332 wrote:

I've found that a good old fashioned ' thumbs up' to a driver (for not pulling out) is far more effective than the " you're a cucking funt" approach

 

Did you mean to post this on another thread?  I don't see the relevence to this one.

Pedantic Pedaller wrote:

My observations of this video are:

The Bin Lorry driver's view of the cyclist was obscured, to a degree, at the T junction.

The driver did start to move out of the junction, but then stopped when the cyclist was in clear view, and stopped within the give way lines of the junction.

The cyclist refers to the driver as a f*cking C U Next Tuesday.

In my defence it wasn't exactly clear that it was replying to a post half-way down the previous page!

HawkinsPeter wrote:

From my experience, it seems like the police aren't interested in simple breaking of rules (probably due to lack of resources) and only pay attention to deliberately aggressive or dangerously oblivious driving.

Personally I wouldn't bother with submitting video of cars in ASLs - I usually do the passive aggressive thing of plonking my bike directly in front of the offending car and then make sure that I take my time clipping in when the lights go green.

That's what I did in the video above, which I removed.  But he then drove about 12 inches off my rear wheel at 25 mph.  See my update on his employer's response.

cycle.london wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

From my experience, it seems like the police aren't interested in simple breaking of rules (probably due to lack of resources) and only pay attention to deliberately aggressive or dangerously oblivious driving.

Personally I wouldn't bother with submitting video of cars in ASLs - I usually do the passive aggressive thing of plonking my bike directly in front of the offending car and then make sure that I take my time clipping in when the lights go green.

That's what I did in the video above, which I removed.  But he then drove about 12 inches off my rear wheel at 25 mph.  See my update on his employer's response.

If you can't get the police interested in it, then it's probably not worth engaging with the employer if they're being hostile.

Sometimes you just have to give it up as a lost cause or start subscribing to Legs11's philosophy.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

From my experience, it seems like the police aren't interested in simple breaking of rules (probably due to lack of resources) and only pay attention to deliberately aggressive or dangerously oblivious driving.

Personally I wouldn't bother with submitting video of cars in ASLs - I usually do the passive aggressive thing of plonking my bike directly in front of the offending car and then make sure that I take my time clipping in when the lights go green.

Also ASLs present a problem in that cars can be legally be there if they go over the ASL entry line when the lights are green and then can't cross the junction (e.g. heavy traffic) before the lights go red. That means that video evidence would have to be timed right to catch drivers out, so I can see why police de-prioritise it. Most of the time it's just rude rather than being dangerous.

On the occasions when I've reported it, the film has been crystal clear, and the driver or biker has rolled into the ASL 5, 10, sometimes 30 seconds after the lights go to red.  But they have been clear in that the ASL is apparently 'for guidance only'.  Who knew?

cycle.london wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

From my experience, it seems like the police aren't interested in simple breaking of rules (probably due to lack of resources) and only pay attention to deliberately aggressive or dangerously oblivious driving.

Personally I wouldn't bother with submitting video of cars in ASLs - I usually do the passive aggressive thing of plonking my bike directly in front of the offending car and then make sure that I take my time clipping in when the lights go green.

Also ASLs present a problem in that cars can be legally be there if they go over the ASL entry line when the lights are green and then can't cross the junction (e.g. heavy traffic) before the lights go red. That means that video evidence would have to be timed right to catch drivers out, so I can see why police de-prioritise it. Most of the time it's just rude rather than being dangerous.

On the occasions when I've reported it, the film has been crystal clear, and the driver or biker has rolled into the ASL 5, 10, sometimes 30 seconds after the lights go to red.  But they have been clear in that the ASL is apparently 'for guidance only'.  Who knew?

Apparently, vehicles can be fined for mis-using the ASL, but good luck finding an instance of that.

I'd prefer some kind of private police enforcement of the simple traffic violations that get paid a proportion of the fines issued (i.e. self funding). If you're driving a car and are thinking of parking on double yellows, but then see an enforcement bloke hiding and waiting for you to park - you're going to park elsewhere. Just imagine how much money you could make by catching out the school drop-off/pick-up crowd.

Of course, fining bad drivers seems to be political suicide, so I don't think it's likely to happen soon.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

@cycle.london - that does sound like a frustrating experience.

It seems to me that they haven't got a portal to upload video evidence, but is that still the case? I

https://www.met.police.uk/report/report-a-road-traffic-incident/

HawkinsPeter wrote:

@cycle.london - that does sound like a frustrating experience.

It seems to me that they haven't got a portal to upload video evidence, but is that still the case? I remember reading that there was a national portal that could be used when the regional police don't provide one. My experience with Avon & Somerset has been much better since they got their video portal up and running and they now seem to do a pretty good job.

With making a complaint, the objective isn't necessarily to get a prosecution, but to get the police to pay more attention to cyclists. The idea is that they can usually hand-wave away cyclists' concerns and it won't appear on any key metrics that the police are judged by, but the number of complaints IS reported, so this is something that they will care about when enough complaints are made.

It sucks, but we can at least try to push people towards encouraging active travel. Sometimes all that progress needs is for the old people to die and let the next generation through.

Edit: NextBase is the national portal: https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/

Forgot to mention the bit near the end of the Met web portal form.  You know, you go through the what's your name, DOB, address etc.  Then you tell them what happened, and there are radio buttons for what you think the driver did wrong.  So there's mobile phone, red light jumping, careless and inconsiderate etc.  And right near the bottom, there is 'cycling close pass'.

And one day, this must have been about six months ago, I noticed that the radio button for 'cycling close pass' had vanished.   I fired off an e-mail to traffic prosecutions bloke in Marlowe House, asking him where it had gone. 

'Oh,' he replied.  'I'm sorry.  I've got onto our web team, and they're putting it back'

A month later, same thing: 'cycling close pass' had gone from their website.

Another e-mail.  Another response.  'I don't know why this was removed, but it has been put back online'.

Were I given to conspiracy theories......

HawkinsPeter wrote:

@cycle.london - that does sound like a frustrating experience.

It seems to me that they haven't got a portal to upload video evidence, but is that still the case? I remember reading that there was a national portal that could be used when the regional police don't provide one. My experience with Avon & Somerset has been much better since they got their video portal up and running and they now seem to do a pretty good job.

With making a complaint, the objective isn't necessarily to get a prosecution, but to get the police to pay more attention to cyclists. The idea is that they can usually hand-wave away cyclists' concerns and it won't appear on any key metrics that the police are judged by, but the number of complaints IS reported, so this is something that they will care about when enough complaints are made.

It sucks, but we can at least try to push people towards encouraging active travel. Sometimes all that progress needs is for the old people to die and let the next generation through.

Edit: NextBase is the national portal: https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/

Are complaints counted if they're not upheld?

And if they have the power just to say "your complaint is vexatious, we're ignoring it', is there really any point?

cycle.london wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

@cycle.london - that does sound like a frustrating experience.

It seems to me that they haven't got a portal to upload video evidence, but is that still the case? I remember reading that there was a national portal that could be used when the regional police don't provide one. My experience with Avon & Somerset has been much better since they got their video portal up and running and they now seem to do a pretty good job.

With making a complaint, the objective isn't necessarily to get a prosecution, but to get the police to pay more attention to cyclists. The idea is that they can usually hand-wave away cyclists' concerns and it won't appear on any key metrics that the police are judged by, but the number of complaints IS reported, so this is something that they will care about when enough complaints are made.

It sucks, but we can at least try to push people towards encouraging active travel. Sometimes all that progress needs is for the old people to die and let the next generation through.

Edit: NextBase is the national portal: https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/

Are complaints counted if they're not upheld?

And if they have the power just to say "your complaint is vexatious, we're ignoring it', is there really any point?

I believe so as otherwise it would be pointless measuring them.

I'm somewhat repeating what is in this excellent little blog (thanks to Simon E for finding it a couple of weeks ago):

https://willcycle.blogspot.com/2017/12/when-police-fail-you.html

It is worrying just how much the regional police vary. Imagine if they were all like West Midlands Police - that'd wake up a bunch of drivers.

KINGHORN wrote:

I will tell you why the cyclist seemed to be right of center, it's because of the parked cars ahead on the left!!!

KINGHORN wrote:

KINGHORN wrote:

I will tell you why the cyclist seemed to be right of center, it's because of the parked cars ahead on the left!!!

 

And don't forget, he was already in prime because he was passing parked cars!

Mungecrundle wrote:

The cyclist may have looked like he was positioned for a right turn off the main road. But unless that was backed up with an arm signal, then as a driver, I would like to think that I would have not made that potentially lethal assumption and held back.

And if he wasn't turning right  then why was he positioned so far over that the bin lorry could undertake?

Welcome pedantic...

Pedantic Pedaller wrote:

My observations of this video are:

The Bin Lorry driver's view of the cyclist was obscured, to a degree, at the T junction.

The driver did start to move out of the junction, but then stopped when the cyclist was in clear view, and stopped within the give way lines of the junction.

Are we to award him a medal for driving within acceptable standards?

Pedantic Pedaller wrote:

The cyclist refers to the driver as a f*cking C U Next Tuesday.

Proven to be correct

Pedantic Pedaller wrote:

The cyclist then proceeds to cycle in the middle of the road, approaching a right turn with a right turn lane provided.

And?

Pedantic Pedaller wrote:

Why was this cyclist in the middle of the road?

Well a couple of points, parked cars and dooring may be reasons but ultimately - it doesn't matter. He was where he was. Would you drive aggressively at children because they dared to play football in the street?

Pedantic Pedaller wrote:

The bin lorry driver makes a very poor undertake.  However, the undertake is legal if the road user in front is making a right turn.

He wasn't

Pedantic Pedaller wrote:

I think if the cyclist persued this with the Police, he may receive a Fixed Penalty Notice himself.

Why?

John Smith wrote:

To be fair that roundabout is not very clear, and there have been a fair few complaints about the way the junction is layed out. The contractors have done a shocking job. Complaints have been made to the council, who’s reply has been “we asked the contractor to check and they said it’s fine”... ok. Checking their own work then.

 

with regards to the bin lorry, I have just re watched the video and I do wonder if the driver thought the cyclist was turning right in to Old Marston Road. He should not have gone until he was sure, but I would not assume it was malicious.

Yes, I suppose the lorry driver could use this as an excuse, especially as the rider was so far over to the right. It's not clear why the rider was so far over to the right that a lorry could actually get past on the left, but given the fact he wasn't in the right turn feeder lane/section, and he wouldn't have been indicating right, then the lorry driver should have waited.

Also, what's with that cycle lane that directs cyclists down the side of the parked cars? It's just asking to be doored! Terrible.

Kendalred wrote:

It's not clear why the rider was so far over to the right that a lorry could actually get past on the left.

It is probable that he was so far over to the right because he expected that the lorry driver would try to pass without any regard for his safety.  Perhaps the lorry driver was exhibiting other aggressive driving behaviour.  Or perhaps he's experience aggressive driving from a bin lorry driver on that route (there can't be that many bin lorry drivers on any given route). Regardless of the reason he may have suspected it was an aggressive driver, it was a suspicion that the lorry driver confirmed.

He could have ridden in secondary position and it is possible that lorry driver would have passed him safely - but it is clear the driver had no concern for his safety, so that not highly likely.  It is just as likely that driver would have hemmed him against the kerb where he had no escape route.

His only mistake, if he made one, was to allow the lorry driver enough space to get through on the inside.  His cycling could be construed as aggressive, but only in the sense that he is aggressively defending his own safety.

jh27 wrote:

Perhaps the lorry driver was exhibiting other aggressive driving behaviour

Except we see as mentioned above
"The driver did start to move out of the junction, but then stopped when the cyclist was in clear view, and stopped within the give way lines of the junction."

John Smith wrote:

with regards to the bin lorry, I have just re watched the video and I do wonder if the driver thought the cyclist was turning right in to Old Marston Road. He should not have gone until he was sure, but I would not assume it was malicious.

I was puzzling about that and I think your explanation is reasonable.
I also think a number of cyclists don't indicate either but leave it to backward glance and road position as to their intent.
I'm still not clear why the cyclist was so far over.

John Smith wrote:

with regards to the bin lorry, I have just re watched the video and I do wonder if the driver thought the cyclist was turning right in to Old Marston Road. He should not have gone until he was sure, but I would not assume it was malicious.

Regardless of if he thought the cyclist was turning right, it is not a safe maneouver - especially in a several tonne vehicle travelling at that speed.  If the cyclist is turning surely he requires more space, not less.

When my father was taught to drive buses, many decades ago, he was taught to leave as much space from the cyclist as the cyclist is tall, as a minimum.

Malicious or not, it doesn't improve the standard of his drive.  His intent may not be malicious, but neither is his intent to ensure the safe operation of his vehicle.

jh27 wrote:

When my father was taught to drive buses, many decades ago, he was taught to leave as much space from the cyclist as the cyclist is tall, as a minimum.

I think that's a piece of guidance which has been lost. Most bus drivers I've encountered (whether whilst I'm cycling or while a bus passenger) leave just enough room that they don't hit the cyclist, and sod the concept of "turbulence ".