Near Miss of the Day 790 updated: Cyclist gets ANOTHER close pass from same taxi the day after punishment pass

True. I was of course assuming "not the UK" where our talent to sabotage anything for pedestrians or cyclists makes you think "malevolent" rather than "incompetent or ignorant" sometimes.  A more charitable explanation is just "motoring first and foremost, then - if we remember - anything else right at the end / bottom of the list".

Stevenage (and Milton Keynes to a lesser degree) are interesting data points for this.  "They built it and they didn't come" is the cry.  As a detailed analysis points to though they built a whole new town making driving very easy.  This attracted people who were going to drive, at a time when this was a great aspiration.

Where driving and cycling are (almost) as convenient as each other, people drive. (Milton Keynes cycling infra still has some problems too).

Although it might take quite a few years before people decide to stick to "their" side why can't we just build it sensibly? (A: because it is nowhere seen as a priority, or even a need because few pedestrians and no-one cycles etc.).

HoarseMann wrote:

Yes, there's a decent cycle lane running alongside, segregated from pededstrians, which is a rarity. But I can understand if there are groups of people walking all over it, then the bus lane is the better option.

Worth noting that the quality of the lane on the other side (going into town?) is much worse.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Worth noting that the quality of the lane on the other side (going into town?) is much worse.

The cycle path is bi-directional and the rider came from that side anyway, so it would be a reasonable alternative if not busy with pedestrians.

Bobbylala wrote:

there is an underpass for cyclists.

There's an underpass. 'For cyclists' is dubious though. It may tolerate cyclists, but it's not really suitable for them, particularly for any 'non-standard' cycles.

Fair point. I would still opt for using the pedestrian crossing at the end of the cycle path, rather than cycle on the roundabout. 

Cyclists should go slow so cars can go fast seems an odd belief to have.  

So common it's worth examining more deeply.  Not a psychologist but I think there's an unconscious "charity but you'll have to be humble for it" thing going on with non-motoring provision in the UK, especially for cycling.  So "OK, to keep you happy we'll provide a cycle path BUT that's certainly not to allow you to go as fast (or faster!) than the cars".

There's probably a techincal term for the use of "charity" to bolster your own "top dog" status while cementing the lower status of the recipient by donating "prolefeed".  Provision potlatch?

chrisonatrike wrote:

There's probably a techincal term for the use of "charity" to bolster your own "top dog" status while cementing the lower status of the recipient by donating "prolefeed".  

It's almost a form of Stockholm syndrome isn't it, you place the other party in a position of extreme peril such that they are disproportionately grateful for any perceived kindness on your part.

Bobbylala wrote:

blah blah

You've failed to explain why the cyclist should be the one who makes all the compromises in this situation?

Secret_squirrel wrote:

You've failed to explain why the cyclist should be the one who makes all the compromises in this situation?

Especially when current Government guidance states that cycling provision should not make cyclists compromise, especially if they want cycling infrastructure used.

I'm just finding it odd that Hugh thinks I should use a different cycle lane along the same stretch of road.

I'm happy to cycle along the bus lane here as it's a 50-30mph road, I hardly ever actually have any buses pass me here cause I'm on the road for a couple of minutes max, if there are buses it's not cyclists holding them up, it'll be the traffic lights at the roundabout, the multiple traffic lights going into oxford, or more likely the sheer volume of traffic. I think Hugh is disingenuous to say I'm holding all the people in buses up here.

Using this bus and cycle lane rather than the shared paths either side of the a40 here to me makes sense. I'm able to progress at a speed I want with hardly any other interaction with vehicles. If I'm on either shared path I'm usually mixing with parents with small children going to or coming back from school.

This isn't me being impatient, I'm just choosing a route that's better for me.
Hugh is more than welcome to use a shared path and pootle along. I don't have to do that.

More importantly here though is that if I or any cyclist chooses to use the bus, taxi, and cycle lane here we shouldn't have to deal with this level of shoddy, dangerous driving.

.

' an action not being illegal does not equate to it being sensible - a point which is unfortunately lost on too many cyclists.    '

.

And  lost on many of the bike-fascists on this site.

.

I'm not sure you know what "fascist" means, fb... 

Best wishes to your partner for a swift and full recovery.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Best wishes to your partner for a swift and full recovery.

I wasn't the witness and my partner wasn't involved.  It was just something I came across on twitter this morning.... Maybe I should have made that clearer 

Drop the coding [ quote ] [ /quote ] (without the spaces in the square brackets) at the start and end of the pieces you are quoting which can help distinguish.

Yes, definitely needs some padding on the camera holder or a camera with built in dampening.

From my experience of Oxfordshire roads, that is likely to be after padding and image stabilisation.

I was going to say much the same thing, although the particular bit of road in question seems like pristine tarmac by Ox standards. Also the video keeps wobbling even when at a standstill at the roundabout - not quite sure how that works.