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

The police were informed 4 days after the incident. They contacted the company for the drivers details well before 14 days.

Badly written, sorry. I sent the note to the company and got no response in 3 days so sent the video to the police. They asked the company for the drivers details well before 14 days. I was then contacted by the web developer a month after the incident telling me the company don't seem to look at their web page.

I was watching a dash cam compliation (wish I had noted which one !) where driver A over took driver B in a 30 and went the wrong side of the island.

Driver A then almost hit the cyclist who was using the painted cycle lane. They either failed to observe them or just didn't give a shit.

Either way I do find it concerning when drivers do this overtake as it is not risk free.

Garage at Large wrote:

In all fairness to firwoods, who I can vouch for having been a satisfied former customer, I wouldn't have apologised either. No way the cyclist was doing 20mph, and also decided (for reasons only in their own head) not to use the freshly laid and perfectly serviceable cycle path, instead deciding brazenly to hold up hard working people earning a living.

You are such an r-sole!

The cyclist doesn't have to use a cycle path as you well know (even though  there is a short cycle lane marked on the road as the truck passes). The truck driver does have to obey the rules of the road, which include passing pedestrian islands on the right side. And he was about to turn left anyway?! Bigger r-sole than you!

As always, the better action is to ignore boo's obvious trolling posts of defending road crime, victim blaming cyclists and vile accusations aimed at cycling Mikey and other posters. Then maybe Road.cc will take appropriate actions when they realise he isn't generating page visits and 'interactions'". Or until he falls back into the full racist or open vileness and is kicked off for that (I think the accepted term is asking for his own account to be removed when for racist reasons). 

Garage at Large][quote=Jem PT wrote:

Legally, you are correct: the cyclist doesn't have to use the cycling path (although of course the recommendation is to do so when cycling at less than 18mph).

Please stop repeating this lie.

Is that polite enough for you?

The second part. There is no such recommendation. As was pointed out several times when you posted that disinformation before.

Garage at Large wrote:

I'm not sure which part of my statement you're referring to as a lie, but as odd as it seems, cyclists do not - I repeat do NOT - legally have to use a cycling path where one is provided.

... and, for the avoidance of doubt, a cycling path is not - I repeat NOT - provided here, so your tilt at the cyclist is based on a red herring.

Garage at Large wrote:

I'm not sure which part of my statement you're referring to as a lie, but as odd as it seems, cyclists do not - I repeat do NOT - legally have to use a cycling path where one is provided.

what about the part where you claim the space beside the cyclist is a cycle lane, when it is clear it starts here, and the cyclist has not yet reached it?

Garage at Large][quote=Jem PT wrote:

These attitudes distil down into a basic premise: are you courteous to your fellow man or not? I'd argue that by riding in the manner displayed in the video, the cyclist hasn't displayed values of respect and decency. Of course you're free to disagree, as is your right, but please try to extend the same politeness to me as I give to you - thank you!

You are not a polite person. You behave in a rude, condescending and antisocial manner every day you post here. You clearly revel in your constant attempts to aggravate this entire community, and genuine respect is a concept I doubt you can even recognise. 
 

As evidenced above where you are simply lying about the events that are plain to see on video. Just so you can unfairly denigrate a cyclist who has done nothing wrong. Just because you hope it will make other cyclists reading it have a slightly worse day than they otherwise would. And you talk about being polite?

Garage at Large wrote:

Jem PT wrote:

The cyclist doesn't have to use a cycle path as you well know (even though  there is a short cycle lane marked on the road as the truck passes).

Legally, you are correct: the cyclist doesn't have to use the cycling path (although of course the recommendation is to do so when cycling at less than 18mph). However, this isn't just a legal question, it's an ethical and moral one, extending into attitudinal variations between some cyclists and society at large. These attitudes distil down into a basic premise: are you courteous to your fellow man or not? I'd argue that by riding in the manner displayed in the video, the cyclist hasn't displayed values of respect and decency. Of course you're free to disagree, as is your right, but please try to extend the same politeness to me as I give to you - thank you!

what cycle lane? I don't know about Herts, but round here it is customery for cycle lanes to be clearly identified. So it seems that in your desire to defend any driver of any wrongdoing, you have decided this must be a cycle lane. except it obviously isn't.

Jem PT wrote:

[quote= ... The truck driver does have to obey the rules of the road, which include passing pedestrian islands on the right side. And he was about to turn left anyway?! ...

The lorry did pass the traffic island on the right side, but yet still managing to be on the illegal side!  (Sorry, I will get my coat)

Disappointing effort there GaL. I'm sure you can come up with a better wind-up if you try just a little harder.

Garage at Large wrote:

and also decided (for reasons only in their own head) not to use the freshly laid and perfectly serviceable cycle path, instead deciding brazenly to hold up hard working people earning a living.

Except that is not a cycle path, it's a pavement. Cyclists are not supposed to use the pavement, which is generally reserved for parking cars. The cycle path begins at the shared use sign where the kerb drops to admit cyclists, and ends just around the bend towards the end of the video.

The entry point for cyclists to the shared use path has been expertly positioned just where pedestrians will stand with pushchairs waiting to cross at the island, and just too late for any cyclists wishing to avoid being squeezed out by lorries at the pinch point. But that's besides the point here.

And just a shared pathway too of pointless length.

What is it supposed to achieve ?

Add massively to congestion and pollution...

hirsute wrote:

And just a shared pathway too of pointless length.

What is it supposed to achieve ?

The council can tick the cycle provision box and get the money.

Garage at Large wrote:

In all fairness to firwoods, who I can vouch for having been a satisfied former customer, I wouldn't have apologised either. No way the cyclist was doing 20mph, and also decided (for reasons only in their own head) not to use the freshly laid and perfectly serviceable cycle path, instead deciding brazenly to hold up hard working people earning a living.

It seems that almost every part of this post is either a mistake or a deliberate lie.

Still though, of course you wouldn't have apologised since you're a genuinely nasty person who thrives on attempting to create discord and anger.

Garage at Large wrote:

In all fairness to firwoods, who I can vouch for having been a satisfied former customer, I wouldn't have apologised either.

No way the cyclist was doing 20mph, and also decided (for reasons only in their own head) not to use the freshly laid and perfectly serviceable cycle path, instead deciding brazenly to hold up hard working people earning a living.

You, preaching ethics and morals - whatever next...?

Facts, evidence, truthfulness?

Interesting concept that a cyclist can't be a "hard-working person earning a living". What world do you live on?

* I added the hyphen for you this time, but in future you need to work harder on your spelling and grammar.

You forget. Nigel is a leisure cyclist. He only heads out on quiet roads during quiet times of the week in order to enjoy the fruits of his labour and ensures that nobody is inconvenienced by his actions. Remember anyone who cycles beyond the pursuit of leisure is an anathema to him. 

Garage at Large wrote:

In all fairness to firwoods, who I can vouch for having been a satisfied former customer, I wouldn't have apologised either. No way the cyclist was doing 20mph, and also decided (for reasons only in their own head) not to use the freshly laid and perfectly serviceable cycle path, instead deciding brazenly to hold up hard working people earning a living.

.

.

Garage at Large wrote:

instead deciding brazenly to hold up hard working people earning a living.

I was going to let this slide and be the bigger man. But I can't. You've really offended me and probably many others on the list forum. I work hard. I work bloody hard. I work long and unsocial hours. I work with some very unpleasant and self entitled individuals (not colleagues I should add) I choose to cycle as my contribution to the environment. I cycle for my health and well being. I cycle because I enjoy it and because some days I can get from A to B much quicker than by driving. I do own a car. It gets used for long journeys or when I have no other means to move stuff. I will use infra but only when it is joined up and doesn't put me in danger. Every time I go out on my bike I will cycle defensively to protect myself but I will always make a point of moving to the side once it is safe to do so. I use lights. I wear visible clothing. Yet. With all this 'moral and ethical' decision making, my life is constantly compromised (and actually has been)by many selfish and entitled motorists. I end up having to negotiate long tail backs of cars who are 'brazenly holding up hard working people' like myself due to there being no infrastructure available to ensure I can get from A to B safely. 

Garage at Large wrote:

What I do know is that by choosing to ride in the manner displayed in the video, by ignoring the cycling infrastructure, he has deliberately held up the firwoods driver.

You're going to have to help me here Garage; what cycling infrastructure? There is none. That thing on the left, the other side of the raised kerb, that's a footpath or pavement.

Garage at Large wrote:

- I don't know if the cyclist in the clip is working or not. What I do know is that by choosing to ride in the manner displayed in the video, by ignoring the cycling infrastructure, he has deliberately held up the firwoods driver.

The non-use of cycling infrastructure is irrelevant here since the Firwoods driver had overtaken the cyclist by the time the cyclist reached the dropped kerb that appears to signal the start of the mixed use path.

Also, having just watched again, it appears that the sign at the end of the mixed path requires one to stop and wait for a space in traffic. If the infrastructure is not convenient to use, don't be surprised when folk don't use it.

You know. You just needed to stop after the first line. There was no need to justify yourself beyond that. 

The infra commences at the pedestrian refuge. The cyclist hadn't even reached this point when the overtake was committed to. So could in no way have delayed the driver.  If a 2 second can be called a delay. And as the HC advises (pre update) don't overtake a cyclist when approaching a roundabout/traffic calming measure/left turn.  It also advises that you don't pass the right hand side of a refuge solely because a pedestrian crossing will only be looking in the direction they expect traffic to come from and there's no guarantee that the driver will have clocked their presence.

Also if you check GM you will find the infra only exists for a short distance either side of the junction and looks as if it is there to aid cyclists negotiate said junction by forcing a rather convoluted manner regardless of the direction approached. (Something like turn left to turn right) 

I actually don't give a rip if somebody can't ride a bike whether it's a cargo bike, trike or whatever  All I ask is that they don't put my life at risk.  

A word of advice. I did childrens and youth work for a good many years and we taught and encouraged that when saying sorry, not to use the word 'but' as that negated the apology. Maybe something you could take onboard.

I will accept your apology though. 

Garage at Large wrote:

I'm sorry you've been offended by what I wrote, but I really didn't mean it in the way you've chosen to interpret it.

You really did. Since everything you've said about the cyclist's behaviour is a lie, you are only saying what you are saying because you want to offend people. You're nothing but a yob behind a keyboard with no sense of common decency.