Near Miss of the Day 702: Must Get In Front lorry driver goes wrong way round pedestrian island

hirsute wrote:

Why are posters wasting time responding to a proven liar whose desire is to cause maximum disruption?

I couldn't agree more

Agree - why bother replying to the village idiot? It likes it when you do - so deny it the cheap pleasure. 

wycombewheeler wrote:

what an excellent cycle lane, to avoid 10s of cycling on the road, the cyclist must now slow down in a pinch point and risk of collision with vehicles coming from behind, have a potential conflict with any pedestrian waiting to cross the road, and then come to a dead stop to emerge back onto the road, before needing to get back up to speed with Firwood HGVs thundering round that bend at max speed by increasing the turn radius courtesy of driving the wrong side of the island.

I wouldn't use the cycle lane either, cwrtainly not more than once.

The fact that the resident troll cannot grasp that :-

• The rider, as has been proved by a distance/time calculation of the riders speed, was travelling at the speed limit, therefore could not have possibly "deliberately held up the firwoods driver" because the driver should not have been going in excess of the speed limit
• As you and several other people have noted the cycling infrastructure does not start until after the lorry has committed to breaking multiple road laws, therefore there is no dubiety as to where the cyclist should have been riding.... on the only place where it was legal for them to do so..... on the road.

Quite simply it lives in a world where the actual facts  are completely irrelevant and its opinion is all that matters.  It is displaying narcissistic tendancies by deliberately posting controversial posts so that people give it the attention it craves.

We should all as a concerted effort simply ignore all of it's inflammmatory posts until it goes away.

In this post I was talking about the actual cycle lane that has been installed here, and not claims of additional imaginary cycle path that other posters may have refered to.

It is of course unrealted to the incident, but is so shockingly pointless, I thought it merited comment.

Unfortunately, it means he will still post bullshit and bile and try to dress it up as niceness at least once a week. And the mods will still do nothing about it. 

whoosh

I know Cu Next Tuesday thank you very much. Just pointing out him not posting at all would be ideal.

If I see blatant disregard of road safety laws, I will report them whether I felt in danger or not. This is on the assumption they either know no rules of the road so will break any of them through ignorance, or more probably they do know them and will break them regardless for their own benefit. 

If that is close to the depot, and Streetview shows not much change to the road betwen march 2021 and now, I actually suspect the cyclist was incidental and said driver regularly does this manouvre so they can go around the corner faster without needing to slow down. 

Mungecrundle wrote:

Obviously 20mph limit and wrong side of the island issues but I'm not sure I'd be very distressed about this. Good visibility, forward observation and safe overtake from the point of view of the cyclist.

Would it be OK for cyclists to ride on the pavement or jump red lights then, provided that on their assessment there was no risk? Or is the law the law and not some arbitrary guideline that can be broken with impunity at the discretion of the individual?

The last time that I was passed by a speeding motorist going around the wrong side of a so called pedestrian refuge it was a terrifying incident, on a road with many of them, part of my evening commute.  All I was aware of was the screaming engine of rapid acceleration, I believed they would drive straight through me.

What is it about "traffic calming"?

Mungecrundle wrote:

Obviously 20mph limit and wrong side of the island issues but I'm not sure I'd be very distressed about this. Good visibility, forward observation and safe overtake from the point of view of the cyclist.

Certainly I value my life above the other guy's licence. I'd far rather be a witness to this scenario than a victim of the alternative. However it is still worth reporting since driven with that attitude things will play out differently next time.

I don't see why you had to do that for Ren as most road cyclists who hit 20mph could see the cyclist was doing very close to that speed at the time. 

However I'm sure mean spirited person if they exist, would be the ones who defend a lorry blatantly breaking standard road laws put in place to protect pedestrians (and not arbituary ones like close passing) by stating it is a cyclists fault for not being on a cycle path that didn't actually exist at the point the lorry broke standard road laws. 

Still I suspect anyone like that would be the same type of person who would be a lying, racist, mysoginist anti-vaxxer who then tries to claim moral and ethics on their side one day, after insinuating vile things about other people on others previously.

Rendel Harris wrote:

One would hope it wouldn't happen, but it's possible some nasty mean-minded agenda-driven silly little man might claim the cyclist was lying about doing 20mph: having a quick look at Google Maps, the distance from the edge of the entrance on the left to the traffic island is 64 metres and the cyclist covers it in seven seconds, or 9.14m a second. 9.14x60 = 548m/minute x 60 = 32,800 m/h = 32.8 km/h = 20.4 mp/h. So hopefully nobody will be stupid enough to try any nonsense about that.

You need to remember that they view their opinion as fact..... you have used pesky evidence to prove that yet again he is making things up which are so easily disproved.  

And because they knew legally the cyclist did no wrong they had to try and say it was morally bad for the cyclist to be on the road...... because cycle lane...... but with the fact that you have been able to prove that the cyclist was travelling at the speed limit even his ethical and moral arguments are moot.

*edit*

I'd expect an expert in statistics to have had the common decency to carry out the basic mathematics to confirm his opinion before he made such grandiose alternative facts claims

. 

Nice bit of research there! You've earned a thumbs up!

As it happens I was on a Dolan GXT at the time.....

Depends if you ask DM supporting twats. Or road lawyers trying to angle for business. 

Unfortunately I suspect the cops can't do anything if the OP didn't tell them for a month. 

I think even they would struggle to deny that cyclists do not have to use cycle paths which are not there.

Sriracha wrote:

I think even they would struggle to deny that cyclists do not have to use cycle paths which are not there.

If a tree fell onto an imaginary cycle path, would the council ever get round to clearing it?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

I think even they would struggle to deny that cyclists do not have to use cycle paths which are not there.

If a tree fell onto an imaginary cycle path, would the council ever get round to clearing it?

depends

if the imaginary cycle path was aligned witht he acutal road, they would likely be there in a day

On the pavement, perhaps not.

Although this may be harsh, bucks CC has a portal for reporting blocked rights of way, and it seems response can be pretty quick, even when concerning brideways, whewre the responsibility rests with the landowner.

I suppose you could always show them the thumbnail for the video above as a still image. Then ask "Is the driver passed the cyclist and performing an illegal road manouvre before or after the shared path starts?"

Yep, no NIP within 14 days, no prosecution.