Near Miss of the Day 818: No action taken as police say cyclist ‘put himself in danger’ by ‘barging to the front and moving into driver’s path’

Older and sadder - yes, I know where you're coming from. road.cc does have its share of 2wg,4wb thinking, but why should that surprise anyone? It's a *cycling* forum for heaven's sake, not the BBC.

I'd say that in practice, most posters are more "2 wheels friends, 4 wheels also friends except for the tiny but very, very visible minority who are psychopaths" school of thought. Which seems to be the reality of the cyclist's life in any large city in this country.

But what would I know about that? I live in a medium-sized town where car drivers stop to let me through on my bicycle...

Quote:

But what would I know about that? I live in a medium-sized town where car drivers stop to let me through on my bicycle...

Where is this heaven?

Older and sadder wrote:

Hi Panda, welcome to the bear pit. I'm afraid to say you will find very little tolerance in this echo chamber for any view other than "two wheels good, four wheels bad" Any sugestion are ruthlessy quashed that there are such things as aggressive cyclists who strap on their Go-Pro and look for situations they can provoke into a near miss video, or the holy grail of a video used in a prosecution. I am also not Nigel but this post will probably get that slung at me. I try to treat everyone on the road with equal consideration and treat them as I would like to be treated. Unfortunately there are many road users out there, on two and four wheels, who feel consideration is ionly what other people owe to them!

I use a cam and will only release the extreme and stupid clips and then only on Road.cc in order to highlight issues still faced by cyclists be they commuters or leisure. My last one I also released to Ashley Neal and the reaction from his viewers was pretty much one of shock and horror that the motorist did what they did and wasn't prosecuted. My YouTube channel is mainly private and I don't have time to administer it anyway so I'm not out there provoking situations and it's pointless my reporting to the police in Scotland as they won't progress as I wasn't injured. My primary use of a camera is for there to be evidence when the possibility of something more serious actually and to prove I wasn't cycling like a tool. 

Older and sadder wrote:

I'm afraid to say you will find very little tolerance in this echo chamber for any view other than "two wheels good, four wheels bad" 

So bored with the cliched whiny phrase "echo chamber" so beloved of certain posters; what does it actually signify beyond "not as many people on this site agree with my opinions as I'd like"? This is a website for people who love cycling, people who share a common love for something often agree with each other, shock.

Would be nice to point out those aggressive cyclists? Maybe the Surrey Police Brompton Team? Inpector Kev? Cycling Mikey? The NMOTD person in this one? Other NMOTD Submitters? Me (the only definite prosecution I got was when a driver didn't even look, or subsequently brake and stop when I crashed into his car as he shot across me at an island, without the camera he would have got away with it). 

What do you think about drivers with dash cams? Or households with Ring cameras and other CCTV?

You've gone from 'dedicated cycle lane' to 'safe cycling facility'.

There are very few safe cycling facilities in the UK

panda wrote:

Weaving through a queue of traffic rather than just waiting at the back when there is no dedicated cycle lane at the other side of the lights then riding primary is adding time to those drivers' journeys and subtracting hardly any from yours, and it isn't making you safer because the drivers that just overtook you are going to have to overtake you again. 

How does one know there's "no dedicated cycle lane" before one actually gets there?

I'm making a general point.  Unless one knows there is safe space waiting for you at the front / other side, why weave through?  Surely best to assume there isn't unless you know the route?

So in short, you are saying don't filter past traffic waiting at lights because it might annoy drivers?

I agree to a point. I will not always go to the front of the queue, especially it it's only a few vehicles ahead. I probably would consider it here though, as with 5 vehicles they'd be a risk the lights would change before I got there and the sensor might not detect a waiting cyclist.

In this case, the delay to the motorists caused by the cyclist is probably nothing, as I'm sure the beeping car will have caught up with the pick up truck. If the truck had stayed behind the rider, they would have been delayed by a couple of seconds at most. Which is not much of a hardship to bear for the priviledge of driving your large, dangerous and polluting vehicle through a town centre.

panda wrote:

Riding primary when a lane is narrow and asking drivers to wait a few seconds to pass is fair.  

The lane is narrow. Four seconds after the driver begins their pass it widens slightly so a pass could have been made more safely, six seconds after the pass begins the cyclist turns off, so if the driver had waited a few seconds, something you say is fair enough, they could have proceeded on their way without any necessity for the pass.

panda wrote:

Weaving through a queue of traffic rather than just waiting at the back when there is no dedicated cycle lane at the other side of the lights then riding primary is adding time to those drivers' journeys and subtracting hardly any from yours, and it isn't making you safer because the drivers that just overtook you are going to have to overtake you again.

Apart from questioning why cyclists should give up one of the main advantages of being a cyclist/motorcyclist, i.e. legally being able to drive past traffic queues, for the convenience of motorists, it is unquestionably safer to ride to the head of the queue and then ride primary than to sit at the back of the queue, with other drivers joining behind you who will then try to squeeze past. As above, the maximum delay imposed on the driver(s) by this cyclist was just a few seconds, something they can make up with a tiny dab on the accelerator when it's safe to do so. As a London commuter faced with many traffic queues I can say it's definitely safer to be at the head of them than in the middle or at the back waiting for others to join behind, something tacitly acknowledged by the authorities with their provision of advanced stop boxes.

As an aside I would question the way these roadworks/temporary lights are set up, it would seem to me to be a prime case for a "narrow lanes do not overtake cyclists" sign, which might have prevented the conflict.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Apart from questioning why cyclists should give up one of the main advantages of being a cyclist/motorcyclist, i.e. legally being able to drive past traffic queues, for the convenience of motorists, it is unquestionably safer to ride to the head of the queue and then ride primary than to sit at the back of the queue, with other drivers joining behind you who will then try to squeeze past.

My points are general, I wasn't addressing the specific case in the video.  The Toyota driver should have waited.

This comment (I hope I've quoted properly) is interesting.  The general motoring public do not believe that cyclists have a right to overtake them or ride up the inside and then slow them down.  I'm saying - others may disagree - that whether doing that is legal or not, it's not helpful.

This is just my opinion, others may differ.  If I sit primary at the back of a queue and when the queue starts to move I remain primary until it's safe for any cars behind me to pass, then pull across to let traffic past, then I think that is as safe as filtering to the front and doing the same.  I also think it's more considerate.  I expect consideration from motorists not just an attitude of "the law says it's OK to do it so I'm going to do it", so that's how I behave myself.

panda wrote:

The general motoring public do not believe that cyclists have a right to overtake them or ride up the inside and then slow them down.  I'm saying - others may disagree - that whether doing that is legal or not, it's not helpful.

I'm sure they don't, but what the GMP believe is secondary to both the law and cyclist safety. I respect your opinion that it's safer to wait behind, but for the reasons I previously outlined I disagree. In addition, this whole "slowing down traffic" business has to be addressed. We're not talking about the cliched and generally mythical "I got held up by a hundred cyclists cycling two abreast on country lanes for fifty miles" here but a few seconds' delay - something you did actually say was OK. The motorist has lost next to no time and could make  it up in a couple of seconds with a dab on the pedal if they're that bothered. I agree that motorists and cyclists should be considerate of each other; in a situation where the motorist is clearly expressing annoyance with the cyclist, and subjecting them to a close pass (albeit not a terribly dangerous example)) for causing them literally four seconds' delay by putting themselves in a position where they felt safest, it's the motorist who's showing no consideration, in my view.

I've never said the Toyota driver shouldn't have waited!

There's two elements to it - there's the "what's the delay?" part which motorists ALWAYS overstate.  If I'm driving behind a pair of cyclists on a country lane at 20mph for half a mile when I would otherwise have been doing 40mph, I have not lost 10 minutes.  It's a judgement call if you know the road you're on is narrow for a while whether to let someone past.  In my experience cyclists and tractor drivers get it about right.  

Interestingly, I believe 30 seconds is how long people will wait for an elevator to arrive before they start repeatedly pressing the button and grinding their teeth.

Then there's the "was it necessary?" part.  Removing NMotD818 from it, I think we broadly agree - if I'm on a bicycle and you're traffic, you should be prepared to increase your journey time by a few seconds if it decreases the probability of me not completing my journey at all.  That means filtering is sometimes OK, sometimes it's inconsiderate. 

I appreciate the nuance here.  Particular your noting of the asymmetry of "but I was delayed by the cyclists!" - drivers weren't at a standstill (cyclists dismount!), they didn't have to pedal back up to speed from a standstill,  they merely drove slower for a period (adjust position of foot on pedal).

panda wrote:

Interestingly, I believe 30 seconds is how long people will wait for an elevator to arrive before they start repeatedly pressing the button and grinding their teeth.

Yes - and it's right to identified this is a "human" thing, rather than being something special which happens when you get into a car.  However we (our designers / lawmakers / planners / police) need to understand this also applies to cyclists, pedestrians, the disabled... The convenience of the majority outweighing that of the current minority is one thing.  We shouldn't be creating situations (or letting existing ones continue) where we set up a choice between safety and convenience for vulnerable road users, where on the other side of the "balance" is just more or less annoyance for the motorist.  This safety / convenience divide applies much less in the case of motor vehicles because decades of safety improvements mitigate the consequences of drivers' errors to a great degree.

Again - looking at best practice this is understood:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/why-are-we-still-waiting/

And good cycle infra improves both safety AND convenience often by sending motorists a completely different route.  After all traffic lights are motor vehicle infrastructure, unnecessary where there are only cyclists.

panda wrote:

... if I'm on a bicycle and you're traffic, you should be prepared to increase your journey time by a few seconds if it decreases the probability of me not completing my journey at all.  That means filtering is sometimes OK, sometimes it's inconsiderate. 

Does that last sentence not undo what you've said before?  Who's being inconsiderate?  Do my hurt feelings / frustration (in my car) trump your need to be and feel safe (on bike / on foot)?

As things stand people hate cyclists because they perceive them as competitors for space who are freeloaders and cheats.  They get ahead and don't "pay the costs".  They're clearly an "other" e.g. not motorists (because cycling), a minority, they're "not playing by the same rules" e.g. able to filter where motorists can't.  Plus they are then "in the way" when the cars get up to speed.

Unfortunately the legality or otherwise and HC guidance doesn't really affect what is an emotional response.

Fixing things?  I think where there are cycle tracks / paths e.g. it's clear this is space which is not usable by vehicles and that cycling really is a different mode this perceived conflict goes away.  An inexact analogy but consider - do drivers get outraged at passengers in a train running parallel to the road passing them?

chrisonatrike wrote:

panda wrote:

... if I'm on a bicycle and you're traffic, you should be prepared to increase your journey time by a few seconds if it decreases the probability of me not completing my journey at all.  That means filtering is sometimes OK, sometimes it's inconsiderate. 

Does that last sentence not undo what you've said before?  Who's being inconsiderate?  Do my hurt feelings / frustration (in my car) trump your need to be and feel safe (on bike / on foot)?

Not the way I intended it, no.  Sometimes it's better to appear inconsiderate because you're reducing your chance of being seriously injured due to a driver not realising you're there (maybe not even the one you pull infront of).  So sometimes filtering to get to the front appears inconsiderate but is reducing risk.  One could also ride up the right hand side on the wrong side of the road and park oneself at the front when there was no risk where you were.  That would be inconsiderate if you're just then going to hold people up.  Or you could try riding up the inside/outside and have the lights change and have the traffic start moving in which case you may have even increased your risk.  

I'm saying there's sometimes a trade-off between safety and courtesy, that's all.

As I said earlier, be the change you want to see.  Statistically, by riding a bicycle to work and not driving an SUV, you've reduced the overall risk to everyone trying to get to work that day even if yours has gone up slightly.  That has to be encouraged for the benefit of all. 

Riding up the "wrong side" if you're overtaking safely in the opposite lane is fine. It isn't considerate and the concept of holding up traffic is unhelpful. People on bikes are traffic. Filtering up the wrong side might be where there is an obstacle or the wrong way down a one way street. It's not using the other lane per se.

Filtering is not being uncourteous, nor is going to the front of a queue of traffic. Courtesy is very subjective. You could argue that drivers in stationary  or slow moving traffic should be courteous and allow (where possible) a nice space for people on bikes to not be delayed whilst they're clogging up the road space.

panda wrote:

Not the way I intended it, no.

My bad - too much screen time and I misread you!

As for "I'm saying there's sometimes a trade-off between safety and courtesy, that's all." I agree.  The reason for people getting triggered is there have been a procession of posters on here sealioning on the subject - that essentially courtesy (to the driver) trumps feeling of safety - or even safety tout court - of the cyclist.

panda wrote:

As I said earlier, be the change you want to see.  Statistically, by riding a bicycle to work and not driving an SUV, you've reduced the overall risk to everyone trying to get to work that day even if yours has gone up slightly.  That has to be encouraged for the benefit of all.

Amen.  "Cyclists, stay awesome" is it for me.  I and many here enjoy cycling and see benefits in it so cycle regardless.  However part of the reason this remains at a few % of trips overall is that most people perceive cycling as dangerous and unpleasant.  That's because of the interaction with motor vehicles.  People aren't saints or idiots - few people are altruistic in the sense of taking on risk on from others where they sense little benefit to themselves.  So "encouragement" alone (what we get from the authorities) will never shift the needle.  If we collectively want that cycling has to be made more pleasant and convenient (for some trips) than driving.

Rendel Harris wrote:

The motorist has lost next to no time and could make  it up in a couple of seconds with a dab on the pedal if they're that bothered.

Equally the cyclist would lose next to no time by waiting, 8s -10s perhaps by being 6th vehicle through the lights instead of first.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

The motorist has lost next to no time and could make  it up in a couple of seconds with a dab on the pedal if they're that bothered.

Equally the cyclist would lose next to no time by waiting, 8s -10s perhaps by being 6th vehicle through the lights instead of first.

Less about being held up, and more about risking anyone coming up behind being more concerned with beating the lights than watching for whoever's in their way. It's always a judgement call. Sometimes that judgement is to filter, sometimes it isn't.

Rendel Harris wrote:

.., it is unquestionably safer to ride to the head of the queue and then ride primary than to sit at the back of the queue, with other drivers joining behind you who will then try to squeeze past.

I don't see how that is unquestionable at all. I would say it is definitely safer to sit central in a traffic queue than be at the side. (Which is a shame as it is more comfortable to be at the side and put standing foot on the kerb while waiting). Whether the car behind you that might squeeze past was in the queue when you got there, or arrived behind you makes no difference at all. In fact there is a realistic possibility of me keeping up with the car in front as it goes through the narrow lane, making the pass unnecessary.

There is also the possibility that no car arrives behind the cyclist, making being at the back undoubtedly safer than being at the front, with 5 drivers wanting to overtake.

wycombewheeler wrote:

There is also the possibility that no car arrives behind the cyclist, making being at the back undoubtedly safer than being at the front, with 5 drivers wanting to overtake.

Quite so. If we all had crystal balls we'd all make different decisions.

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

Quite so. If we all had crystal balls we'd all make different decisions.

...and a different sound when walking

panda wrote:

 "my other car's an Ineos Grenadier" t-shirt

I'd wear that.

Utter tripe. Akin to your door was unlocked so you were asking to be burgled, you didn't have hi-vis on...., you were wearing a short skirt ..... etc.

Guy on the bike didn't break the law or endager anyone. Guy in the 3 tonne vehicle did drive carelessly and did endager someone.  

Read my very last comment.  Twice.

If you want to disgree and convince me of the merit of your argument, is it best to a) insult my post and counter an argument I didn't make, or b) do something else.  What does your approach achieve?

I'm just a cyclist who wants a lower probability of being run over, via better infrastructure, better driver awareness, better enforcement of the law and - most importantly of all - less anger out there.  

Your victim blaming was insulting to me. You are right though, better not to insult your post. I apologise unreservedly. 

Your pathological examples (which by the way make no sense as they're not highlighting obsessive behaviour and filtering is not obsessive) only serve, in my opinion, to justify the drivers behaviour. If I put another road user's life at risk because I felt they had antaganosied me then I'm not driving to the required standard. It was a punishment pass. The person on the bike can ride anywhere in the lane and where there is a narrow section I would block. That is where the person cycling could improve their roadcraft. It's their decision not the drivers. In this instance I think the police should have given the driver an advisory letter. All they've actually done is send a message to other drivers that if you feel it's justified then go ahead and make your dangerous manouevre. 

Everyone who cycles makes their own decision about filtering. My decison is based on physical safety from moving vehicles to my side and oncoming, and also on observing the HC. It's not based on whether or not I'm going to upset someone driving because I got in front of them. The same applies when I'm considering an overtaking manouevre when I'm cycling or driving. 

I didn't victim blame!  In every post I've said the Toyota driver should have waited!

I'm not justifying the driver's behaviour, in the same way I'm not saying I think it's right and proper that anyone seeing a stranger walk into "their" pub is within their rights to give them a good shoe-ing.  I'm saying - not in the context of *this* incident - that in general if there's no safety reason to ride up the outside of a line of cars waiting at lights and then take primary slowing them down (yes, I know, only for a few seconds) then it doesn't help the cause of the cycling side of the debate.

In response to others talking about the swerve; yes it may have been a belated attempt to take primary and prevent a dangerous overtake attempt, but it could have been almost anything - it doesn't matter - it evidences why 1.5m is necessary.  

Except he didn't really drive carelessly did he? The only thing endangering the cyclist was the cyclist's position. 

The key thing for me is that it appears that the rider moved further into the road when they realised the Toyota was attempting to pass. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Except he didn't really drive carelessly did he? The only thing endangering the cyclist was the cyclist's position. 

The key thing for me is that it appears that the rider moved further into the road when they realised the Toyota was attempting to pass. 

the cyclist did not materialise in that position, the driver new he was there and tried to squeee past dangerously close.

If I shove someone on the stairs I was dangerous, I do not say "But you should have been using the handrail, you put yourself in danger"

In other words I am not entitled to endanger another person becuase they are doing something that I think they should not do.