Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Driver who turned into path of cyclist warns of "dangerous" cycle lanes

Lincolnshire man was turning between stationary vehicles and across pavement cycle path

A Lincolnshire driver has warned cyclists and other motorists about a cycle path in Hykeham, following a collision when turning into his driveway.

Dashcam footage published on Lincolnshire Live shows Tony Greatorex travelling along Station road before turning right between queuing vehicles, into the path of an oncoming cyclist.

There is a crash and the cyclist rolls over his bonnet.

"He was okay – he had a helmet on," said Greatorex. “He was shaken up but it was miraculous he wasn't hurt. The first thing I saw was the body in mid-air going over the bonnet and I thought I had killed someone – your heart stops.

"I got outside straight away and went to the cyclist who picked himself up off the ground, brushed himself down, and wanted to get off home."

Greatorex said he hadn’t seen the cyclist before turning.  

"This is a problem at peak times and at this time of year when it is dark. All I could see in front was 200 light bulbs, there was a break in the traffic and unfortunately the cyclist didn't have high visibility clothes.

"The cyclists have right of way and as soon as I go on the pavement I am breaking the law by going into my own drive."

Greatorex said that both his immediate neighbours had been involved in similar incidents in the last year and while he again mentioned hi-vis, he also suggested that there was an issue with the cycle path itself.

"The cycle route is also on the footpath and cyclists are concentrating on the path and not the road side, so there's not as much concentration – it's quite dangerous. I want everyone to be aware this is a problem – don't let this happen to you."

The relevant section of the Highway Code is Rule 206, which says:

"Drive carefully and slowly when … needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement"

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

45 comments

Avatar
karlssberg | 7 years ago
0 likes

(Victim) blaming a cyclist for not wearing a hi-viz is like blaming a rape victim for dressing inappropriately!  If the cyclist is legal on the road then these types of desperate excuses expose the culpability of the driver.

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
0 likes

I do find that many drivers seem to pay less attention, do dodgier things the closer they get to their homes.  Complacency I guess.  Speeding and use of phones.  Familiarity?  Their children might not be playing in the street just then, but their neighbours sprogs might be.  They are by definition residential areas.  I tend to pay more as I get nearer, I'd feel very foolish falling and breaking the collarbone a few metres from home.

And lots of left hooks.

What I really dislike are those blue signs that warn YOU as a CYCLIST on a cycle path of concealed driveways.  You know if you're hit on them the insurance company will use the sign as a reason for reducing fault.  I try not to use them.  Should there be a sign in the driveway telling the motorist that they might want to try paying attention?

That and the bumpiness of the height changes to accomodate the dropped curb.

But if we aren't using the provided facilities we get shouted at or punishment passed, no matter how crap they are.

Avatar
davel replied to ktache | 7 years ago
1 like
ktache wrote:

I do find that many drivers seem to pay less attention, do dodgier things the closer they get to their homes.  Complacency I guess.  Speeding and use of phones.  Familiarity?  Their children might not be playing in the street just then, but their neighbours sprogs might be.  They are by definition residential areas.  I tend to pay more as I get nearer, I'd feel very foolish falling and breaking the collarbone a few metres from home.

And lots of left hooks.

What I really dislike are those blue signs that warn YOU as a CYCLIST on a cycle path of concealed driveways.  You know if you're hit on them the insurance company will use the sign as a reason for reducing fault.  I try not to use them.  Should there be a sign in the driveway telling the motorist that they might want to try paying attention?

That and the bumpiness of the height changes to accomodate the dropped curb.

But if we aren't using the provided facilities we get shouted at or punishment passed, no matter how crap they are.

+1 for complacency.

I'm not sure there are comprehensive stats on this, but googling turns up various surveys etc (like this one http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/08/most-car-crashes-happen-near-home-18...) about most collisions occurring within a few miles of the home.

The causes of distraction or complacency will be numerous but that seems to signify that you're less likely to pay proper attention or take due care if you're just driving to the shops. Yet another reason to discourage driving for journeys that can easily be made on foot or bike.

Avatar
RMurphy195 | 7 years ago
2 likes

This is one of the fundamental flaws of pavement cycling,or having cycle lanes on pavements - lots of driveways to cross (plus streetfurniture etc.) - that's why I don't ride on them. Realistically unless you are travelling at walking speed, cycling on footpaths is just too dangerous.

When driving, backing out of my drive - it only takes the time to say, turn my head to the right to checks whats coming from that direction as I reverse, for someone cycling from my left to appear and - crunch!ven reverse a foot, stop, look both ways, reverse another foot, same again - when doing this I've been (almost) caught out

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 7 years ago
4 likes

The driver is right that these kinds of cycle paths are dangerous. Though they are dangerous largely because reckless selfish drivers like him are an unavoidable fact of life.

Avatar
waldner71 | 7 years ago
0 likes

There is another cyclist coming down the cycle path towards and to the left side of the driver, before he turns right and collides with the cyclist on the other cycle path -  Is it a 2 way cycle path (too narrow In my view) or was the cyclist going the wrong way?

 

 

Avatar
FatBoyW | 7 years ago
0 likes

The point about reporting it is a very good one - if there was any injury involved I think he is legally obliged to do so and is otherwise a hit and run driver - he ran about 3  feet into his drive by the sounds of it! Hope the police kindly close the circle and educate this gentleman.

All the clickbait remarks about hi-viz et al are very depressing.

I look forward to the harsher sentences and stricter guidelines for driving offences coming in. Not sure if listening to OMD will be breaking any of them but I would expect this chap to get a severe fine in the future or more for endangerign another humans life with a couple of tons of dangerous machinery being carelessly operated!

Avatar
Critchio | 7 years ago
1 like

One of the issues here is the driver did not look for a cyclist or other vulnerable road user when he should have. He's got his music on and is thinking which nob is going to block his driveway....who cares about possible cyclists getting in his way.

As a cyclist and motorcyclist enthusiast the advice I gave my daughter last year when she passed her driving test was to always actively look for cyclists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians and to forget about looking for cars, you will always see larger vehicles (yeah I know there's always an exception). It's the rest you need to be vigilant to. Surprisingly this was something that her driving instructor never mentioned, not once. Boggle.

Driver is trying to pass blame on the cyclist (no hi viz) and the layout of the path, but not his own careless and incompetent driving. Which makes him a poor excuse for a human being.

Avatar
Guanajuato | 7 years ago
4 likes

If only the cyclist had been carrying a unicorn!  There are no recorded incidents of cyclists being hit whislt carrying unicorns. Therefore carrying a unicorn makes you immune from myopic motorists who can't see a brightly lit 6ft tall human being.

Avatar
jthef | 7 years ago
0 likes

For me there are too many mitigating factors to totally blame the driver. Don't get me wrong it was because of his actions this happened.

these include the following

the car lights making it hard to see anything at the other side of them.
the drivers age as you get older it is harder to see at night (that is just nature unless you are going to ban all 50+ from driving).
the white van is like a moving screen stopping or reducing the chance of seeing the cyclist sooner.
When crossing traffic it is natural just to try to nip across the traffic so you don't block the road (I know he should of looked but a lot of people will think they are being good).

When u see the bike light on the camera it is too late unless the bike could stop, so was he going too fast? (BTW I would of been going just as fast or faster  2  so I'm not blaming the cyclist either).

I personally do not like a lot of the new headlights as when you do get dazzled by them you can’t see anything and then it takes time for your eyes to re-adjust.

And I don't know how you will get round this one. As in a lot of cases there is not room to fix it. Unless you get all those car drivers on bikes.

Avatar
brooksby replied to jthef | 7 years ago
3 likes

jthef wrote:

For me there are too many mitigating factors to totally blame the driver. Don't get me wrong it was because of his actions this happened.

these include the following

the car lights making it hard to see anything at the other side of them.
the drivers age as you get older it is harder to see at night (that is just nature unless you are going to ban all 50+ from driving).
the white van is like a moving screen stopping or reducing the chance of seeing the cyclist sooner.
When crossing traffic it is natural just to try to nip across the traffic so you don't block the road (I know he should of looked but a lot of people will think they are being good).

That's not "mitigating factors": that's all evidence for the prosecution, and proof that he (the driver) ought to have been paying far more attention than he ought to.

You shouldn't ever just "nip across traffic so you don't block the road" unless you can see that your entire path/route is clear to do so.  As others have said, he was crossing a cycle path and a footpath to get onto his driveway: he has right of access, but no special priority.  If he and his neighbours have all had near-miss incidents accessing their driveways then he ought to be taking a lot more care.  And to raise the favourite strawmen of the Daily Fail reader: what if that cyclist had been a little kiddie on a scooter?  or someone with a pushchair?  or an old person on a mobility scooter?

Bottom line: the motorist took a chance, made a mistake, and is trying to push some of the blame elsewhere.

Quote:

When u see the bike light on the camera it is too late unless the bike could stop, so was he going too fast? (BTW I would of been going just as fast or faster  2  so I'm not blaming the cyclist either).

But the cyclist was on the cycle path.  They had priority, not the motorist driving across in front of them.

When you are driving, and you have to turn right, do you check for other traffic before making your manoeuvre or do you just nip across and if anything bad happens well then the other vehicle was going too fast???

Quote:

And I don't know how you will get round this one. As in a lot of cases there is not room to fix it. Unless you get all those car drivers on bikes.

Well, now, here's one idea: why don't all those car drivers simply pay a bit more attention to what is around them.

Avatar
TrippyZ | 7 years ago
0 likes

Obviously the drivers fault if he likes listening to 'everybody wants to rule the world'.

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 7 years ago
2 likes

The driver wasn't looking properly. I saw the cyclist's light. The driver knows the cycle lane is there, he has no excuse for not looking properly. If he didn't see the cyclist , it suggests he may have vision problems. As he didn't look properly, it suggests he may have problems with his driving ability also.

Avatar
TriTaxMan | 7 years ago
1 like

No sympathy for the driver in this case, he knew he was cutting across a line of stationary traffic and going over a cycle path.  Also, he was going slow enough that he could have reacted when he saw the cyclist......take from that what you will.

The whole article is victim blaming the cyclist.  I agree with all of the previous comments.  If the driver couldn't see the very bright front cycle lamp that was on the bike, the chances of being able to see Hi Viz clothing is zero.

The moral of the story here.... if you can's see if the road/cycle path is clear don't assume it is check.

I have had several close calls on my cycle to work with very similar circumstances, drivers waiting to turn across the road, with a queue of stationary traffic blocking their line of sight, and when a driver leaves a gap they instinctively assume that the bus/cycle lane is clear and merrily blunder across the road.  

The only reason I have avoided any incidents at that place in the road is because I was paying attention, and was able to anticipate what was coming.

Avatar
Man of Lard | 7 years ago
0 likes

Is this chap not admitting to a "driving without due care" offence and supplying the evidence from his dash cam?

Avatar
kcr | 7 years ago
4 likes

I've been run down on a path by a driver exiting their drive. Luckily knocked into a parking bay rather than the adjoining dual carriageway, but I got a broken hand. I was wearing hi viz, had lights on and it was daylight. He just didn't look or slow down.
This sort of path design is very poor, and doesn't provide adequate protection. In fact, in some ways, it may be more dangerous than travelling on the road.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to kcr | 7 years ago
5 likes

kcr wrote:

I've been run down on a path by a driver exiting their drive. Luckily knocked into a parking bay rather than the adjoining dual carriageway, but I got a broken hand. I was wearing hi viz, had lights on and it was daylight. He just didn't look or slow down. This sort of path design is very poor, and doesn't provide adequate protection. In fact, in some ways, it may be more dangerous than travelling on the road.

It is more dangerous, and there is research which shows it.

Paths like this remove the risk of the least likely bike/car collision, that of being hit from behind, but vastly increase the risk of the most likely collision, being hit at a junction.  They also mean that the cyclist loses right of way at every junction and conflict with pedestrians is introduced.

As Cycling UK put it once "shared use paths are an admission of failure to make the roads safe."

Avatar
BikeBud replied to burtthebike | 7 years ago
1 like

burtthebike wrote:

kcr wrote:

I've been run down on a path by a driver exiting their drive. Luckily knocked into a parking bay rather than the adjoining dual carriageway, but I got a broken hand. I was wearing hi viz, had lights on and it was daylight. He just didn't look or slow down. This sort of path design is very poor, and doesn't provide adequate protection. In fact, in some ways, it may be more dangerous than travelling on the road.

It is more dangerous, and there is research which shows it.

Paths like this remove the risk of the least likely bike/car collision, that of being hit from behind, but vastly increase the risk of the most likely collision, being hit at a junction.  They also mean that the cyclist loses right of way at every junction and conflict with pedestrians is introduced.

As Cycling UK put it once "shared use paths are an admission of failure to make the roads safe."

Had a few incidents where I was nearly hit by a driver entering/exiting a driveway, or even driving on the pavement or setting off from being parked on the pavement.  This is why I don't use many of the cyclepaths that drivers keep telling me are "there for your safety" (along with the pedestrians in dark clothing, pedestrians changing direction suddenly, dogs on leads etc etc).  

Avatar
Jharrison5 | 7 years ago
2 likes

Another thought. Should this motorist not have been reversing into his driveway? Going in forwards means he'll have to reverse on to a main road, without good vision of the footpath or cycleway.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 7 years ago
2 likes

Good job there wasn't a jogger on the path!

Avatar
gmac101 replied to ClubSmed | 7 years ago
0 likes

ClubSmed wrote:

Good job there wasn't a jogger on the path!

 

I've nearly been taken out twice on the pavement by cars either reversing out of their drive or pulling in as this gentlemen did.  I avoided being hit but it was still unpleasant, however i did record good times - the extra adrenalin helps

Avatar
Ush | 7 years ago
1 like

It's a good argument for a >= 1000 lumen light with massive spillage around the edges of the beam pattern and none of that German bicycle light, cutoff beam nonsense. http://road.cc/content/review/143954-magicshine-mj-858-front-light The MJ-902 seems even better.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Ush | 7 years ago
2 likes
Ush wrote:

It's a good argument for a >= 1000 lumen light with massive spillage around the edges of the beam pattern and none of that German bicycle light, cutoff beam nonsense. http://road.cc/content/review/143954-magicshine-mj-858-front-light The MJ-902 seems even better.

This is what makes the whole topic such a pain. On the one hand "1000 lumens is too bright, you are dazzling drivers"...on the other "I can't be expected to see you unless you mount an WW2-era anti-aircraft searchlight on your handlebars"

Avatar
RMurphy195 replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
1 like

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Ush wrote:

It's a good argument for a >= 1000 lumen light with massive spillage around the edges of the beam pattern and none of that German bicycle light, cutoff beam nonsense. http://road.cc/content/review/143954-magicshine-mj-858-front-light The MJ-902 seems even better.

This is what makes the whole topic such a pain. On the one hand "1000 lumens is too bright, you are dazzling drivers"...on the other "I can't be expected to see you unless you mount an WW2-era anti-aircraft searchlight on your handlebars"

 

Parked vehicles on the roadside are likely to obscure the front light of the bike for cyclists approaching head-on, and cause definitie visiblity problems for cyclists coming up on the pavement from behind.  Vehiclessuch as vans - and even the modern (so-called) "Mini" estate is a huge thing. You simply can't whizz along at much more than walking pace on such cycle paths - or run, for that matter - without taking note of vehicles turing into/out of driveways, no matter what the visibility is.

Avatar
OnTheRopes | 7 years ago
0 likes

When I was a child, nobody drove with full headlights on under street lights, this is because it actually makes visibility worse for anything else except seeing the headlights. In fact other drivers would flash you to turn your headlights down to side lights. So the driver did have a point about being dazzled, though knowing the cyle path was their he clearly should have taken more care.

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
1 like

It would be interesting to know what bright colour this gentleman's car is painted.

And Bez's tweet on the police car that was hit in this-

http://road.cc/content/news/212365-police-video-pushes-reflective-clothi...

says it all.

Avatar
WillRod | 7 years ago
2 likes

An entirely preventable collision for which the car is completely liable, especially since he knows his neighbours have had similar issues with their driveways. Also preventable by making highways subject to the same health and safety as industrial sites that have traffic movements... 

Plant machinery and vans on industrial sites are often painted with high-viz chevrons and stripes, have orange flashing lights and are subject to a 10mph speed limit, and required to honk their horn when passing through pedestrianised areas.

Cars are often painted black, forget their lights when driving in town, drive too fast and make manoeuvres without looking properly or warning anyone. Perhaps we should put the onus on the cars to ensure safety? I saw a pedestrian nearly get hit by a Tesla electric car today because the stupid old git driving it wasn't looking, and had turned off the noise generator designed to prevent such an incident!

 

rant over devil 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to WillRod | 7 years ago
1 like

WillRod wrote:

An entirely preventable collision for which the car is completely liable, especially since he knows his neighbours have had similar issues with their driveways. Also preventable by making highways subject to the same health and safety as industrial sites that have traffic movements... 

Plant machinery and vans on industrial sites are often painted with high-viz chevrons and stripes, have orange flashing lights and are subject to a 10mph speed limit, and required to honk their horn when passing through pedestrianised areas.

Cars are often painted black, forget their lights when driving in town, drive too fast and make manoeuvres without looking properly or warning anyone. Perhaps we should put the onus on the cars to ensure safety? I saw a pedestrian nearly get hit by a Tesla electric car today because the stupid old git driving it wasn't looking, and had turned off the noise generator designed to prevent such an incident!

 

rant over devil 

Nice rant, but cars don't decide to do anything, the driver does.  It is a fundamental mistake to blame the car when it is the driver at fault, and excuse mostly used by drivers to shift the blame.

Avatar
burtthebike | 7 years ago
5 likes

Of course it's classic victim blaming, the driver used to be a health and safety rep.

Total failure to analyse the cause of the collision and blame the victim for not doing something which wouldn't have made any difference: just like all the other H&S reps I've met.

Reminds me of when my employer's H&S reps wanted to bring in a helmet rule for riding on company business, which was opposed by the BUG, so we had a meeting.  There were eight of us, four H&S reps and four cyclists.  All the cyclists were slim and looked fit, but all the H&S reps were overweight, with at least two being obese.  They still had the nerve to lecture us.

I wonder if he's reported the collision to the police?

Avatar
IanD replied to burtthebike | 7 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

Of course it's classic victim blaming, the driver used to be a health and safety rep.

Total failure to analyse the cause of the collision and blame the victim for not doing something which wouldn't have made any difference: just like all the other H&S reps I've met.

Reminds me of when my employer's H&S reps wanted to bring in a helmet rule for riding on company business, which was opposed by the BUG, so we had a meeting.  There were eight of us, four H&S reps and four cyclists.  All the cyclists were slim and looked fit, but all the H&S reps were overweight, with at least two being obese.  They still had the nerve to lecture us.

I wonder if he's reported the collision to the police?

 

Hmmm... I ride a bike and I'm a union H&S rep. Don't think the two are mutually exclusive which seems to be the tone your post suggests.

 

Must admit I don't like any cycle route that has driveways or entrances crossing. Still think of Jason MacIntyre every time I cross one.

Pages

Latest Comments