UKH

On my commute this morning.  Trundling along an A road through town, there's roadworks and multiple temporary lights, I'm doing probably 15mph in the foot wide cycle lane but have to go into the main carriageway to get round a sign thoughtfully placed in the cycle lane.  The car behind me deigns not to hang back but to squeeze through about six inches away in order to race ahead to the next red light.

I pull up beside him intending to say "Could you give me a bit more room next time please?" but I don't get that far as he opens his door into my leg and unbuckles.

"What do you want?"

"Well I'd rather you didn't open your door into me. I don't want a fight." (it seemed this was the next step in the dialogue as far as he was concerned).

"You f**king pulled out in front of me and then you are taking my f**king lane up so f**k off"

At the next set of lights I fly past him in the bus lane while he queues in traffic, I wave cheerily.

It's on camera, do I bother shopping him?  I dunno, just needed to share : /

In reply to Bobling:

The world’s resources of tw@tery are unlimited. Probably best to let it go and take the moral high ground, safe in the knowledge that matey’s sky high blood pressure will kill him long before you 😉

In reply to Bobling:

Just a guess, but pulling out in front of them might have been a bit annoying?

In reply to Bobling:

Sadly many cycle lanes are not fit for purpose, added as an afterthought to meet some sort of target.

I use them sometimes but quite often just cycling on the road is way safer. A bit of paint dividing a narrow pavement is worse than nothing.

London seems to do it right quite often but they have spent serious money and given up a fair chunk of road space to cyclists. Works well.

In reply to GrahamD:

Are you serious? Assuming the OP didn't swerve out at the last minute (no indication he did) then he's just part of traffic. 

A six inch close punishment pass is never acceptable considering what can and often does go wrong. I would definitely shop the driver as even if nothing happens this time he may be making a habit of this and one day it might not end well.

In reply to Bobling:

This is road rage plain and simple. Shop him asap before the police can use the crap "you didn't report it soon enough" excuse for doing nothing.

In reply to GrahamD:

It's the Nissan here, given I had to brake and do a little track standy not to go in front of black car it wasn't taking the piss at all.  I think what upset him was that I went past him in the cycle lane and 'jumped the queue.

In reply to Bobling:

I reported a close pass on me as I cycled home from work last week. South Yorkshire Police have been taking it surprisingly seriously and are putting some effort in. I've been very impressed with their response.

I only had a couple of photos, so if you have some video I'd recommend passing it on to the police.

This type of behaviour is unacceptable and needs to be reported. Feels like aggression towards cyclists is becoming more common sadly...

In reply to yorkshireman:

Looking at the pictures, it appears the road and roadworks design are poor. I can see to a driver, a cyclist pulling out from the bike lane to the main lane could well appear to have cut them up. Obviously doesn't justify the response.

In reply to Bobling:

That’s a crap start to the day, you shouldn’t have to put up with this sort of behaviour. Clearly the driver has anger management issues resulting in aggressive and dangerous driving, probably on a regular basis. For me that’s a step up from poor judgement or mistakes which might give rise to a similar situation, on that basis I would report them. In my experience the police take this sort of thing fairly seriously, they will more than likely contact them, the incident go on record, and with camera evidence they may take things further. An experienced cyclist will in most circumstances avoid an accident but for those less confident it’s terrifying with worse outcomes and as a minimum put them off commuting for life.

In reply to PaulW:

Yeah as you can see from the pictures this one is a beauty - about 100m of parked cars just waiting to open their doors into you and knock you into the traffic ; )

As I know my commute inside out I am normally aware of the places it's best to ride defensively and remove the decision from the driver, but given the temporary road lay out I naturally went back to the cycle lane before seeing I'd need to pull round the sign. 

Usually it's all good - check over shoulder, signal if need be, take up a little more room, back to cycle lane thank driver and everyone gets on with their day but friend here wasn't playing.  On the video I spend the 30 metres before the sign saying "Don't squeeze me, don't squeeze me, don't squeeze me".  But no he decided to squeeze me!

In reply to Bobling:

Is that really a burgundy car?

So a sh** driver, with a sh**t attitude,  driving a sh**t car? Full set.

Report him

In reply to Wainers44:

Haha.  Thanks! Case closed 🙂

In reply to Bobling:

The sign was badly placed and forced you to pull out into the lane the car was using. But any car driver who'd done much cycling or motorcycle license holder would read the road and see that sign would force out a cyclist and anticipate it.

Whatever spin people put on it even regardless of the abusive behaviour, the car driver couldn't read the road ahead and anticipate the hazard before it happened. The driver should be returned to provisional and be made to retake their licence 

In reply to CantClimbTom:

Perfectly articulated!

The hazard was clear to anyone and any competent driver should have anticipated the OP's manoeuvre. Report him.

In reply to Bobling:

Unfortunately, we live on a small island populated by a considerable percentage of utter c##ts... Come to that, I can probably replace 'island' with 'planet'.

In reply to Bobling:

Clearly you were "lycra-clad", "a menace" and not paying "road tax" so deserving of it.

People seem to be angrier in general, and this isn't helped by a lot of the media encouraging abuse of cyclists.

In reply to Bobling: report it . Close pass always has the slight possibility it was unintentional and that the driver made a genuine mistake but the getting out and implicit threat of violence should be reported IMHO . I want to get a cam in the van to report the close passes up ahead or to say to the cyclist “ I’ve got that on my cam if you want to report it “ .   I’ve seen some corkers up ahead  this summer on the same stretch of road . 3/4 weeks ago picked a guy out a hedge who had been squeezed off the road 3 cars ahead . Cars two and three  just kept going . I stop. So I’m vehicle  4. Car 5 and 6 try to get by my van which is now blocking the road . Car 6 starts to “ honk “ angrily whilst I’m dusting laddo down and having a look if his bike is rideable . Luckily all fine and off we go . Next two km is far too narrow to pass a bike so I sit behind the bike . Car 5 now starts to tail gate me . We get to the next left hand turn and the cyclist takes it . I go  straight on . Cars 5 and 6 also turn left and car 6 angrily gives me the finger . This all takes about 10 minutes . I then spend the morning worrying g about the cyclist and wishing I had all this on camera . 

In reply to Bobling:

Definitely shop him. I don't know if this is the same everywhere, but my local force keep a record of a complaint and if they get a few reports for the same car they will contact the driver, even if the individual incidents wouldn't be prosecuted.

In reply to mike123:

I just got close passed on my way to the shops. Dirty white van is then stuck in traffic, so I considered having a word, but just couldn't face the inevitable abuse. I was wishing I'd had my camera with me, then when I took my helmet off it was on there! Not switched on of course. 🤦‍♂️

In reply to Bobling:

In the interests of balance, I'd like to report some positive interactions that I've experienced recently, now I do a lot more cycling than climbing. I don't hear that well so I can't be sure I'm quoting them exactly;

The van driver who waited a huge amount of time before he could pass, sensing our concern at his wait he passed and yelled "dont thankus"

The driver in Stoney Middleton who, seeing we were near the cafe encouragingly shouted "get in! Looking at a single mile"

The many drivers who clearly indicate their kind offers of support in case we need to pump up a tyre with a simple hand gesture showing their adeptness with a micro pump,  and by no means least, those drivers who pass us, and sensing our weariness show us with a raised digit that there is only 1 mile to go.

In reply to Bobling:

I'd submit it to the police if you've got video evidence.

I was out for a ride with my 79 year old mother this afternoon when we were subjected to a dangerously close pass by a horsebox which forced her off the side of the narrow road and nearly made her fall off. Sadly no video or I'd definitely be reporting it, even though it seems like police Scotland are somewhat backwards in these things and don't have an online portal.

In reply to MG:

A good driver would have looked ahead , seen that was about happen and not made a foolhardy  and dangerous close pass.

In reply to mik82:

The community of cyclists has aggressive w****rs in it as well.

Full disclosure here, I've been cycling all my life.. 

Something that has happened three times in the past few weeks is I've been behind a group of cyclists out for a club ride. I've stayed well back for a long time, no probs, giving them lots of road. When overtaking wholly in the other lane at least one of the group shouts really aggressively at me. This is north of Glasgow.

I've been cycling everywhere I've lived but I'm getting really tired of hearing about drivers in the wrong. There are two sides to it.

In reply to Currently Resting:

The counter argument to that is that a good cyclist would have seen that their lane was obstructed well in advance, slowed down to the same speed as the cars on their right and moved into a gap once it became available.
Doesn't excuse the dangerous driving though. 

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes, the photos show that was clearly the case. A vehicle in the lane to the right has right of way in that lane, so, if the cyclist pulled out on the car then they were clearly in the wrong (if necessary the cyclist could have stopped at the notice). But, however angry the driver was, there was no excuse for their subsequent aggression.

In reply to robate:

There may be two sides to it if you're talking about a bit of fairly mild annoyance. 

But there's only one side causing deaths and serious injuries to the other in significant numbers, and only one side routinely choosing to risk death or serious injury for the other through ignorance, impatience or just because they think it'll some how teach them a lesson.  (aka: the 'punishment pass') 

So all in all that's a pretty big false equivalence.

In reply to deepsoup:

Yes, think everyone agrees that the subsequent behaviour of the motorist was incorrect and perhaps should be punished.
However, shouldn't we also agree that all road users should do their upmost to use the roads safely and in this case, the cyclist should have perhaps filtered into the traffic earlier?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Don't get it - at what point should I have filtered in? 

Edited to add - what's not clear from the photos is that the light had only just changed from red to green, so the traffic to the right was pretty much stationary and I was doing something which I don't think is very controversial in a built up area by using the cycle lane to filter past stationary traffic.

In reply to FactorXXX:

The Highway Code specifically recommends merge in turn, not switch lanes early as you suggest.

In reply to Currently Resting:

Clearly.

 > and not made a foolhardy  and dangerous close pass.

If it was two lanes of cars, the one pulling out would not have priority. Is it different with a bike lane ? Possibly as the lane is advisory, I think, with dashed lines. But it's ambiguous. Good road (and roadworks) design is important 

In reply to Wainers44:

Hey!

I have a rust coloured Caddy van. 

It's better than flipping white or silver!

In reply to veteye:

Plus I put my bike inside the "Burgundy" van quite often.

In reply to Bobling:

As soon as you realised that your lane ahead was blocked you should have been thinking about changing lanes i.e. filtering in as opposed to cycling up to the obstruction and assuming that other road users should automatically give way to you. 
It's what you would do in a car, why should it be different on a bike?

But you were effectively by your own admission undertaking stationary traffic at 15mph in the full knowledge that your own lane was about to be blocked.  
Fine to filter past traffic by using the cycle lane, but do you really think it's a good idea to join the other lane at the choke point caused by the obstruction in your lane at such a speed? 

In reply to Currently Resting:

The OP wasn't merging in turn as defined by The Highway Code as that is for traffic in two lanes of traffic of equal volume that converge to a single lane by the zip technique. 
What the OP was doing was undertaking cars in the cycle lane and then expecting a gap to magically appear for him to slot into.
That isn't merging in turn and what I suggest is more akin to the premise of merging in turn in that you are taking a pragmatic approach to how you control traffic.
 

In reply to yorkshireman:

I'm just answering the OP's original question, not justifying it.

In reply to FactorXXX:

OK, so what I should have done was as soon as I saw my lane was blocked I should have entered a gap between the stationary cars and queued with them? 

The 15mph was the speed I got back to after the lights in the photo - as far as the lights and the obstruction and the merging in turn business I slowed down in my lane and joined the other lane at the appropriate speed...as I said in my OP I had to hang around almost stationary for a bit a bit to let the black car get under way before merging. 

In reply to Bobling:

You're perfectly entitled to continue along an empty cycle lane past queueing traffic. I think the problem may have been that, when you did get into the traffic lane, you left enough room for a close pass rather than taking up the whole lane and removing temptation.

In reply to john arran:

Sorry, that sounds a bit like victim blaming. Let me rephrase:

I think the problem may have been avoided, when you did get into the traffic lane, by not leaving enough room for a close pass, instead taking up the whole lane to remove temptation.

In reply to Bobling:

When you changed lane:

How fast were you moving?

How fast was the burgundy car moving?

How far in front of the car were you?

Did you indicate?

The answers to these questions would allow people to judge whether you cut in on the driver in a way that justified his anger (not his aggressiveness). I don't think you have answered any of them clearly yet.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Me: 5mph.

Burgundy: Possibly 5mph? but they were behind me and my rear camera is kaput so hard to say.

How far in front - 3 - 4 metres?

Indicate - I doubt it.  I would have checked over my shoulder to ensure Mr Burgundy had seen me and left enough room for me to get in.

I haven't answered your questions clearly yet because no one has asked them.  I'll try to telepathically predict some of the other questions I may get by telling you I wasn't wearing any pants and hadn't yet had breakfast.

In reply to john arran:

Indeed and that's the way I'll ride this bit on Monday!

In reply to Bobling:

Thanks. It's just that you asked why the driver was angry and the answers to these questions seemed  the very obvious bits of information for you to have provided to allow an informed response. Whether or not you were wearing pants or had had breakfast do not seem relevant to your query.

In reply to Bobling: another thought on the whole car vs cyclist topic that occurs to me . Many of these incidents  seem to end up with either the threat of violence or actual violence . Whoever is in the wrong and I accept that sometimes it’s the cyclist , it seems to be ok amongst many drivers ( and cyclists ) to threaten or dish out summary justice . What’s making people so angry ? “ you have cut me up on your bike / car resulting in no damage or injury to anyone however I am very angry about it because, well , it could have caused X Y or Z . I am therefore going to …….. ( or threaten to ).

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah fair enough Robert.  Sorry for getting p*ssy.

In reply to GrahamD:

The OP doesn't seem to have asked a question (perhaps whether or not to hand footage over to the police), more to vent at some over aggressive individual in a 1.5 tonne metal box trying to kill or maim him for no good reason (I'de feel like venting too) - that was my reading at least.  

You response was, on the basis or zero evidence,  to blame him.  Nice.  Bought wholly into the culture wars thing by any chance?

In reply to john arran:

I agree in theory.  Let's face it though, this would have annoyed the individual even more.

In reply to mike123:

Yeah something about traffic and bubbles.  It's like seeing someone cut in front of you in the self-service queue at Tesco and immediately escalating to "I'm going to smash your face in!".  Obvious difference being as someone upthread said only one party is likely to have bits of them turned into hamburger during the encounter when it is car vs bike..

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not so far as I can see reading the OP. 

I think it's pretty obvious that you and a few others aren't especially interested in "informed responses" but in whataboutery and 1.5 ton metal box entitlement.

In reply to Bobling:

That's a classic Murder Strip. Stay in the cycle lane and you're liable to getting car-doored. Take the correct positioning just to the right of the white line and some entitled loser in a car will assume you're just doing it to wind them up, and will play Russian Roulette with you.

In reply to Petrafied:

Read the thread title.

Nonsense.

I am all for drivers treating cyclists with the utmost respect and do so myself.

Nothing to do with entitlement. If I were driving a 1.5 ton metal box and a cyclist pulled out dangerously in front of me (I'm not saying that is the case here) and there were a near miss where they could have been splattered by my metal box, I am sure I would be shaking with shock which could spill over in to anger.

However, I do think that cyclists sometimes do themselves no favours by always seeming to blame the car drivers (again not saying that is the case here). Cyclists are not by any means always blameless.

In reply to veteye:

Ruse yes, burgundy,  sorry,  no.

Is a combination of white and lots of rust ok, as that's the colour of the Scout Minibus I get asked to drive from time to time?

In reply to deepsoup:

I wasn't making an equivalence, false or otherwise. Drivers pose a mortal danger to cyclists but I don't think by and large they mean to harm us rather that they let anger and lack of empathy get the better of them. 

If we want everyone to understand each other better bawling out someone not at fault won't help.

In reply to Bobling:

The road works & traffic lights.

They got held up for a minute or so, and you held them up for a second or two more, whilst, in the their mind, unfairly skipping the queue in the cycle lane.

So you took the brunt of their anger.

In reply to captain paranoia:

.

That's possible.  Alternatively they felt (even if wrongly) that the cyclist was  responsible for a near-miss. Certainly if I am driving or cycling and that occurs I feel anger, I although I wouldn't ever be aggressive to other road users.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Yeah, think you've got it there.  I've noticed that traffic just after it's been forced to queue is less tolerant.  "Gah got to make up time! Outta my way!"

In reply to Bobling:

Hang on, something smells a bit here. 

Possibly 5mph? By your own admission you don't know how fast he was going

Pulling out in front of a moving car that is only 3 to 4 meters? Maybe less even if you are going faster is not a good idea. 

Pulling out without indicating is not a good plan, if you checked over your shoulder why are you unclear if he was going faster than you or how far away he was. 

I'm not saying the bloke isn't a dick but I don't think you handled the situation very well at all. The guy was possibly very shaken because a bike suddenly pulled out in front of him and he nearly killed you.

Also if he was only 3 meters behind you you might have been blocking his view of the obstruction in the cycle lane. 

On a related note, I don't know if it's since the highway code changes or if I just notice it more but most of the cyclists I come across (lots and lots working in the dales most days) neither indicate or shoulder check when pulling out round something blocking the road. Being a motorbike rider this is totally alien to me. You don't pull out ever without a look over the shoulder, no iffs ands or butt's.  Cyclists do it all the time though. Fortunately for them and me being in a large van I can see past them easily and anticipate that they need to pull out and slow down accordingly. 

In reply to Dax H:

Dax I think you may have cracked it here.

I'm not going to go into distances and speeds of the filter by the lights again.  I've been riding in city traffic for long enough to know what is a dick move and what isn't and *I think* that the way I filtered here was fine.  Had I gone through in front of the black car, which I could have done, that would have been unsafe and a dick move. 

What you have made me appreciate is that he may not have seen the further obstruction when I did, and so I assume he will give me room to get round it which he then doesn't.  Looking at the video again I can see that I don't actually change my road position to get past it as I can hear he's not going to give me room, so instead I hang back hold tight and then go round after he is past.  So I feel aggrieved when it's possible he hadn't realised he should have given me more room. 

What I think we've all demonstrated here is that

a) The safest way to ride this tomorrow morning is to take primary position after those lights.
b) This cycle lane is clearly not a cycle lane at the moment and that this whole mess of lights and roadworks should be treated with great caution.

In reply to Bobling:

There's an interesting aside here relating back to a previous cycling thread about folks cycling with headphones on where someone (MG?) argued very convincingly that it was not unsafe, in this case it was my ears that told me what to do.

In reply to Bobling:

I have put a mirror on my touring bike, which I really like, I find shoulder checking makes me swerve.

I bought a mirror after listening to this podcast https://player.captivate.fm/episode/97b14d33-5c8e-4f06-9251-56c59f2c81b0 in which Heinz Stücke says his top tip for safety is to have mirrors. My take is that if that big thing coming from behind hits me, it does not matter who is right or wrong, I could be dead, and "He was in the right" makes a shit epitaph.

In reply to Bobling:

It's impossible to tell what happened here without seeing the video, but what is clear is that cyclist changing from cycle lane has to give way. There is no legal onus on the car  driver to anticipate that the cyclist might not do so. 

Either way, the reported reaction of the car driver getting out with abuse is unacceptable, (if that did actually happen).

In reply to Bobling:

I will never understand the mentality of people who "have" to get past a cyclist when they clearly have nowhere to go after that, such as red lights or a line of traffic, and the cyclist is equally clearly going to pass them again as soon as they stop.

Especially when it's rush hour and they're just racing from one red light to the next.

Just before lockdown, I was cycling home and happened to see my next-door neighbour in his BMW at a set of traffic lights. I beat him home by about 5 minutes.

In reply to Godwin:

I've tried fitting a mirror on my commute bike, but found that I had to take my eye so far off the road ahead to see them that they were hopeless - issue with riding position, drop bars and the mirrors being very small.

Probably easier with flat bars, but then they'd just keep getting knocked when leaning the bike against the wall when I get off it.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

I had a major accident that almost killed me as a result of using a mirror.  The view back isn't that good with the small size and vibration - it looked clear - it wasn't - I pulled out to turn right and got knocked flying.

Would never use one again on a bike, at least until some sort of "helmet cam with heads up display" type thing is really cheap.

In reply to Bobling:

Certainly not me - clearly foolish.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

The MGIFs are funny, it's just an automatic reaction. See a cyclist, must get past. If anything makes them think about what they're doing they will see how silly it is.

I had a guy thrash his car to get past me in a narrow residential street, only to stop 100m further on in traffic. A few minutes later, on the open road, he passed me again (fair enough this time), and he made a point of giving me a really wide berth and being over cautious. I'm sure he realised he'd just been a twit and was embarrassed about it.

In reply to Petrafied:

The thread title is a question FFS.

In reply to john345=:

That's right mate, made it up for sh*ts and giggles - good troll though eh?

In reply to Bobling:

Interesting comments about mirrors, I had a chat with a guy a work who swears by one, I've got one in a box on my desk that I'll have a play with when I have a second, but interesting to hear the opinions against them too.

In reply to Bobling:

So as you would all expect I was hyper alert on my ride in this morning.  Super careful and aware.  Lots of checking, second guessing, eye contact with drivers and caution.  A nice number of thumbs up from bus drivers and waves to lorry drivers who'd given me room rather than pushing by.  But something was glaringly obvious...photos attached, perhaps that answers the question in my OP?

Take care out there folks!

In reply to Bobling:

Cyclists going through red lights?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Bingo

In reply to FactorXXX:

They do not help our cause do they.

In reply to fred99:

Cyclists are specifically allowed to go through many red lights in Brussels - it's great

In reply to fred99:

It's not right, but people do seem to get unnecessarily upset over it. They don't seem nearly as bothered about cars running red lights and speeding, even though these cause far more deaths.

In reply to Hooo:

Don't I know it - only last night (on the way home from work) some clown in front of me went over on red which meant pedestrians had to jump back. Result for car - went 20 metres up the road once over the yellow box.

In reply to Neil Williams:

It wasn't one of those tiny oval ones on a stalk that fixes to your helmet was it?

I had one for a while and it was absolutely brilliant, until it wasn't.

It had to be in the exact correct orientation otherwise it had a heinous blind spot.  Like you I nearly found out the hard way.

In reply to TheGeneralist:

No.  It was fairly small and oval shaped but attached to the bar end.  When I bought it most options were like that.

The only way I'd even consider it again would be if it was as big as a car one and with an anti-vibration device.

Yes, I liked it...until I nearly died as a result of its shortcomings.  Of course all mirrors have a blind spot, but a sideways glance as you'd do in a car or van wasn't enough to see a car approaching from behind at speed.

In reply to Bobling:

I use this mirror and find it great

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/100-bike-rear-view-mirror/_/R-p-512?mc=815802...

In reply to Carless:

That's very similar to what I had.

My potentially life-saving warning would be to make VERY sure you know exactly where the blind spots are and how much you have to turn your head to check them, and adjust it carefully each time.

I know there's the whole SMIDSY thing, but I genuinely *didn't* see the car that then hit me doing 65mph (he said, and I'd have been doing about that where the collision happened had I been driving).  Well, not until it went into my peripheral vision shortly before it whacked me flying, which was a bit late.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I like to use a rear radar unit to give me warnings connected to Garmin Edge. Don’t have to shoulder check unnecessarily on quieter road and certainly useful on busy roads.

Not cheap, but certainly effective (accepting a few false alerts but better that than not altering for an actual vehicle). Mine can highlight separately up to six following vehicles and their relative speed and distance.

In reply to Bobling:

Commuting is stressful anyway, and anything which upsets the routine of it adds to that stress.  It is usually against the clock, so anything which appears to be delaying the journey, such as being cut up, will add to that stress even if the actual delay is insignificant.  There may also be resentment towards anyone seen to be pushing in, whether in a car or on a bike. All this adds to stress levels.

To a driver cyclists can be a nightmare. Their movements may be erratic and unpredictable, and they often ignore the rules of the road. They are often travelling either much faster or much slower than the rest of the traffic, both of which cause problems.  Despite their vulnerability some seem to have little regard for their own personal safety (dark clothing, no lights, aforesaid erratic behaviour) and seem to think that it is everyone else's responsibility to avoid them. If there is an accident the driver will probably be held responsible regardless of the cyclist's own behaviour.

To the cyclist, their manoeuvre may seem well-judged and safe.  To the driver, the cyclist has made an unexpected move into their lane with no warning, and probably causing an adrenaline rush as they react to the possible risk of an accident.

Of course none of this excuses the driver's subsequent behaviour, but it explains why they are angry.

In reply to Carless:

A tennis racquet!

In reply to Howard J:

FTFY

In reply to fred99:

Spot on. Typical example:

https://road.cc/content/news/driver-cleared-killing-cyclist-dangerous-drivi...

In reply to Pedro50:

Indeed - always very useful!

Strange, that link worked yesterday

Try this https://www.decathlon.fr/p/retroviseur-de-velo-100/_/R-p-512?mc=8158024

In reply to Just Another Dave:

Read the report.  The driver was acquitted of dangerous driving, but he was convicted of careless driving.

Besides, being held responsible covers more than just legal consequences (which I agree are often inadequate here).  Drivers often expect that they will get the blame for an accident even where the cyclist was being a dick, and the hierarchy of road users set out in the new Highway Code only reinforces this.  Besides, no one actually wants to kill another human being.  It's about drivers' perceptions and reasons for getting angry with cyclists when they bring themselves into conflict with cars. 

In reply to Bobling:

Trying my very best to be objective.  

The RAC has a page on zip-merging here:  https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/zip-merging/

Summary:

• Merging at the last minute (zip-merging) is preferable.
• Studies reveal that zip-merging reduces crashes, speeding and congestion.
• When nobody has a perceived advantage, the potential for ‘road rage’ is reduced significantly.

RAC indicates that Highway code #134 is the rule we need to be looking here:  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-a...

Rule 134

You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as directed. In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended at high speed.

ANS

Driver = Shop him for the close pass and the aggression.  Easy.  I would.

You = I think its not clear cut.  Sounds like you did do as the RAC recommends and zip-merge at the last minute .. which appears to be the correct thing to do even if other road users didn't like or approve with that.  I think the question is whether the driver was obliged to make space for you to merge and whether when you did merge if you so did safely.

There are a lot of personal injury pages on yielding when merging - I looked at this page only:  https://www.personalinjury-law.com/faq/two-lanes-merge-right-of-way

The driver of the vehicle in the lane that is ending, is supposed to yield to the vehicles in the other lane. The cars in the lane that is ending should only merge when it is safe to do so. When merging drivers should make sure they have enough space to move their vehicle over into the other lane. You will have to judge space between vehicles and the speed of the vehicles.

You will need to use your signal to indicate that you are merging into the other lane of traffic, so the other drivers will know you are indeed making a lane change. When the other drivers see your signal, they should adjust their speed to allow you to enter the other lane.

You must judge the speed of other vehicles. You will also need to make sure that there is enough room between vehicles before you make your move into the traffic.

Here is my take upon reading the above:

1. From your picture, it appears like you were merging into the lane of traffic because your cycle lane was closed.  The opposite does not appear to be true .. it doesn't not appear to be the traffic merging into the cycle lane.  Do you agree?
2. On the basis of the above - since you were merging into the traffic then it would appear you were obliged to yield if the traffic didn't make space for you to safely enter the flow.  Did you yield - did you stop if there wasn't space to come over?
3. When you did merge - you were meant to signal.  Did you?
4. When you did merge - you were apparently responsible for making sure that it was safe for you to do.  Did you - was it?
5. When you did merge - you were apparently responsible for making sure that there was sufficient space and that you joined the flow with comparable speed.  Did you - did you join at the speed of the aggressive driver ... presumably that is up to 30 mph?

None of the above is meant to suggest the driver was in the right or defend his behaviour.  He wasn't right - its free to put your video into the police - do it .. I would.  Let them sort it out.

All it is meant to highlight is that perhaps its not a clear cut case that you were completely in the right.  Road users have an automatic right of way when merging.

It does look like very poor use of traffic lights.  

In reply to StuPoo2:

Sorry .. typo.  

What I meant to say was that you do NOT have an automatic right to merge if its your lane that's ending.  

In reply to Howard J:

Sounds like you leave the house too late. Have you considered leaving earlier so you aren’t racing the clock to work in what sounds like a dangerously stressed state?

That stress is entirely your own responsibility. Ask yourself why it is so important to you that no one “pushes in”. You’ve acknowledged that the time delay is inconsequential, and there are no prizes for getting to the next lights first, so why do you resent them? Your ability to regulate your emotions around normal daily occurrences isn’t the responsibility of other commuters.

Different road users travelling at different speeds are simply a feature of our roads, not a problem. Framing the very presence of other road users as a problem that needs solving is bound to lead to frustration. And if someone can’t cope with the presence of other road users then they shouldn’t be on the road themselves. 

Perhaps try taking the view that other road users simply exist, and that sharing the roads with them is just a normal part of driving rather than a problem that unfairly impacts you. You might feel less stressed.

In reply to StuPoo2:

I think that's right. But...it takes a page of quotes etc to make the point. There is no way this can reasonably be done only the fly. The fact there are lots of claims in this area suggests it's all unclear.

In reply to Howard J:

Can we stick to facts as derived by professional accident investigators and those who compile the stats, rather than unsubstantiated vitriol more likely to be seen in the daily hate?

In reply to Currently Resting:

There are certainly accidents caused by cyclists.  I caused one, as mentioned above in the discussion about mirrors.

The driver involved was quite concerned that he'd be strung up for it (so decided not to pursue me for the damage to his bumper) but would have been entirely entitled to do so.  I had to buy a new bike which at the time was expensive, but more importantly my foolishness has caused me long term health issues 20 years later due to clotting in my slightly damaged knee.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Were you being a dick?

In reply to Currently Resting:

I made a mistake.  I don't think it would fit with "being a dick" (I wasn't riding aggressively or inconsistently) but I certainly made an error that directly resulted in a collision that nearly killed me, and I'd not say the driver's actions were contributory at all.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Exactly, you made a mistake, and that’d  be reflected in the accident stats. Let’s not associate your accident with the inflammatory language used by Howard. 

In reply to Currently Resting:

That's an entirely fair point.

In reply to Bobling:

I've just finished bike packing across Corsica and in the last two days alone I've been threatened, had someone try to run me over, and been spat at.  French drivers are normally pretty good with cyclists, but not in the North of Corsica it seems.  I resorted to carrying a rock in my back pocket, which I've had to use once and threaten to use another time to prevent from being flattened.

Amazing how angry some people can get...

In reply to Godwin:

Motorbikes have mirrors yet we still shoulder check. All mirrors have massive blind spots.

I predominantly drive a van with massive mirrors and blind sopt mirrors too but their is still a blind spot that can hide a family car and it's impossible to shoulder check due to the lack of windows. 

In reply to Currently Resting

We ok. Can we also agree to stop referring to drivers as murderers and such like after accidents?

In reply to Bobling:

I’m a cyclist (and a driver) l cycle in a defensive non confrontational fashion, last year I cycled over 10000 miles. On average I submit 1 police report every two weeks from my bike cameras. So that’s one report per 400 miles, mainly rural roads so say 3 cars pass me per mile that is one in 1200 drivers who have caused me enough concern to report it. Most drivers are fine, the issue is that the very few who aren’t can potentially easily kill me.

In reply to GrahamD:

And yet it managed to sound like a justification.

In reply to Bobling:

I think the question that I would ask is why did you opt to move over in front of the Nissan rather than behind it?

In reply to Stuart Williams:

It would be nice to live in such a calm and well-ordered world as you describe. Unfortunately that is not the reality.  People react emotionally, not logically. I am not suggesting that this is how drivers should behave, I'm trying to explain why they get angry.

I think cyclists make many drivers uneasy. They don't match the rest of the traffic speed, and their behaviour can be erratic and unpredictable, if only because cyclists may have to react to minor obstructions or road conditions that a car driver isn't aware of.  A small mistake which between two cars might at worst result in a minor scrape could result in injury or death to the cyclist, and believe it or not most drivers don't want to be responsible for that.  

The OP by his own admission changed lanes without signalling and expected the car driver to make way for him.  Some would regard that merely as assertive riding, others might see it as aggressive cutting-up.  Either way, it is likely to provoke a reaction.  For most, a muttered "idiot" would probably be sufficient - this driver's aggressive and threatening response was over the top and unnecessary and I'm not condoning it for a moment, but some sort of reaction was surely to be expected.

Cyclists (and I am one) get justifiably angry when car drivers fail to show them sufficient consideration, but fail to acknowledge that they may sometimes show insufficient consideration towards car drivers (of which I am also one). The fact that the stakes are far higher for cyclists shouldn't be an excuse.

In reply to Howard J:

If cyclists make drivers uneasy, and drivers genuinely don't want to cause injury to cyclists, then the drivers should simply hang back and not overtake unless it is safe to do so. Nobody ever came to any harm by waiting and not overtaking. But this isn't the way many drivers behave, they sit too close behind a cyclist and then pass too close when it isn't safe to pass at all. 

because this may result in serious injury or death.

but fail to acknowledge that they may sometimes show insufficient consideration towards car drivers (of which I am also one).

this only results in some mild inconvenience, if any. Usually the inconvenience is significantly less than the driver perceives it to be. (If somebody thinks a cyclist has 'made them late', then they were late already). 

The fact that the stakes are far higher for cyclists shouldn't be an excuse.

The fact that the stakes are far higher for cyclists is everything. These two situations are in entirely different leagues of severity.

If a cyclist chooses to make a dangerous manoeuvre near a vehicle, (pulling in front of a car without signal for example) then they have chosen to put their own life at risk, that's their choice. No harm will ever come to the driver in this situation. 

 When a driver makes a dangerous manoeuvre near cyclist (close pass for instance) the driver has chosen to put the cyclists life at risk, this is not their choice to make.

In reply to Howard J:

It's got nothing to do with living in a calm and well-ordered world. And people aren't at the mercy of their emotions; humans have a prefrontal cortex that for most people is very well developed to regulate the limbic system.

It isn't a fact that cyclists are a "nightmare", it's a judgement within your own head that you can learn to have some control over. Equally you have the ability to plan and think ahead, and therefore to work out that if you leave a few minutes earlier for work your commute won't be such a stressful race against the clock where you feel resentful of other road users. If you think the only way to manage stress levels is for the rest of the world to change to accommodate you then you are on a hiding to nothing I'm afraid. If an adult cannot regulate their emotions in typical daily situations, the issue absolutely isn't cyclists travelling at a different speed to them.

No different to the risk of other cars swerving or slamming the brakes on if something unexpected happens in front of them. If you are so close that you can't avoid another road user (car or bike) reacting to an unexpected or unseen hazard then you are too close. This is why if you rear end another car you will be assumed to be the one at fault.

If people are riding or driving dangerously and outside of the rules of the road, that is one matter. But many of the things you describe as a problem are legal, normal and completely to be expected which puts the onus on you to navigate them safely and sensibly.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Obvious bollocks. Humans aren't robots.

Not if it swerves from the adjacent lane.

The fundamental problem is mixing cars and cyclists. There will be accidents, and shouting that drivers are reckless emotional murderers, or that cyclists and unpredictable road hogs won't change that. Decent cycling infracture will as in the Netherlands or Denmark.

In reply to MG:

Adults are expected to have learned some ability to regulate their emotions in order to function in a cooperative society. People excuse a toddler screaming the supermarket down because the chocolate they wanted is sold out, but if I did it I’d swiftly be out the door and unwelcome back. Things like “cyclists travel at a different speed to cars” or “I’m on the way to work” are clearly not a sufficient explanation for anger, resentment or aggressive behaviour. 

Please do show me where I have said either of those things or shouted at anyone.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

"Some" being the key. If you approach any human interaction ignoring emotions, it won't go well for you.

It was a general comment about how these discussions go..

In reply to MG:

Hence why I used the word “regulate” rather than “control” or “eliminate”. Should I take this as an admission that “people aren’t at the mercy of their emotions” isn’t, in fact, bollocks?

In reply to Stuart Williams:

No. It's an absurd statement. Books like Thinking Fast and Slow talk a lot about it, for example.

In reply to MG:

I can only assume we have very different understandings of what “at the mercy of” means. Thinking Fast and Slow does not say that adult humans are incapable of regulating and influencing their emotions. 

In reply to Dax H:

My comment here had a dislike, I'm quite used to dislikes but this one has me baffled, can the disliker explain why please? 

In reply to Bobling:

Something that happened to me earlier today on my morning commute...

I was waiting at a light-controlled four way junction near my house. I had reached the lights first and was sat at the front of the ASL, with an intention to turn right. I signalled my intention very clearly, both during the waiting phase and once again just before the light turned green. Perhaps you could say I should have positioned myself to the right of the box (I was on the left, using the kerb to get a better launch) but I think that's neither here nor there.

The lights change green. I set off and turn right, as signalled. The lady behind me in the fancy black Merc, who it turns out is going straight across the junction, guns her engine in the apparent belief that she can overtake me. When it becomes clear that I intend to carry out the manoeuvre that I've very clearly signalled, she undercuts me at speed and gives me a long, angry blast of her horn.

I had to take a minute off the road to gather myself. I can't conceivably see what I've done to provoke this woman beyond merely existing.

Let's not pretend that this is anything to do with my behaviour, or that of other cyclists. Let's not victim blame to make excuses for this disgusting behaviour. This is pure arrogance, entitlement, and a willingness to threaten and bully. There is a large subset of drivers who don't possess the requisite emotional maturity to safely operate a potential murder weapon in the presence of other people, and who should have their licenses permanently revoked.

In reply to Trevers:

I would have been in the centre of the lane, or at the right. 'Take the lane'.

It doesn't always work: I have been cut across on a roundabout. Apparently, it was my fault for not seeing her indicators as she approached me from behind, took the second lane, and then overtook and cut across me to take the first exit...

In reply to Trevers:

You were at the left kerb but turning right? I would certainly find that confusing as a driver - on the left implies turning left or going straight; signalling right the opposite.  As cyclist if I got stuck on the left like that, I'd make very sure the car behind me knew what I was doing before pulling right in front of them.

In reply to MG:

Victim blaming.

As I mentioned, I made a very clear arm signal. Twice. On the first occasion for at least 30 seconds, on the second occasion just before the lights changed and as I was moving off.

In reply to Trevers:

Who's the victim.? The cyclist for not following the HWC, or the driver having to deal with an erratic cyclist

So what, it's not your right of way.

In reply to MG:

Bullshit. If you can't comprehend that a cyclist sat in front of you at the lights signalling right is about to turn right, tear up your license.

In reply to Trevers:

You clearly said you were on the left kerb, not in front. Make your mind up.

In reply to MG:

I was in the ASZ. She was behind the ASZ. Ergo I was in front of her. As opposed to alongside or behind.

In reply to Trevers:

Rule 179

Well before you turn right you should

use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you

give a right-turn signal

*take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right*

leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.

In reply to Ryan23:

Apart from the psychological impact of injuring or perhaps killing another human being, or instinctively swerving with the injury/fatality happening to someone who didn't 'choose' to endanger themselves. 

In reply to MG:

I use the kerb to give myself a better launch when setting off, because that way I can accelerate into the junction at the same rate as a car, hence avoiding any difficulties with considerate and aware drivers. As an experienced cyclist I understand that in many situations, there is safety in speed.

The driver had absolutely no right thinking about overtaking a cyclist who'd VERY CLEARLY signalled their intention to turn to the right. My positioning within the box does not affect that. Nowhere does it say in the Highway Code that cars get priority over cyclists at junctions.

You're justifying appalling driving and road rage.

In reply to MG:

So you sit in the category of driver who should have their license permanently removed.

One lane of traffic, whoever is at the front has right of way regardless of whether they are turning or going straight ahead. In this case the cyclist.

Since when did someone behind, who is going straight ahead have right over someone infront turning right? Do you regularly overtake people who are indicating to turn right? Do you regularly see others doing this? I don't think I have ever seen anyone do this.

In reply to Trevers:

And you're trying to justify your poor 'driving'.

You don't queue up in the left lane if your intending to turn right, indicators on or not.

She still sounds like an ****hole anyway.

In reply to Trevers:

No he's not; he is explaining why the driver might have been confused by your behaviour.

Possibly your position on the left kerb but signalling right might be seen like a driver in the left hand lane of a motorway signalling to change lanes not immediately (having already checked their mirror) but later when it is safe to do so.

In reply to Trevers:

The whole point of an ASL is to allow cyclists to position themselves correctly.  You chose to ignore that so you could go faster, positioned yourself contrary to the HWC and expected the driver to accommodate you.  You are at least partially responsible here.    Aggressive driving (if that happened) is also  wrong.

In reply to Trevers:

On the other hand, if you had been positioned to the right, or in a position where the driver behind could pass to your left safely without you having to rely on your speed and without you passing directly in front of her, the unpleasant situation might have been averted. 

In reply to Ryan23:

Sure.

Except that wasn't the situation described (we clarified Trevers wasn't in front).

In reply to MG:

Eh? Besides the fact that Trevers has clearly said they were indeed in front, if Trevers wasn’t in front the situation couldn’t possibly have occurred. If Trevers was alongside then they would have collided with the side of the car, and if they were behind they would have passed behind the car. How can a car overtake or undertake someone who isn’t in front of them?

In reply to Stuart Williams:

If he was at the kerbside that is to the left of any car, presumably also further forward as there was an ASL, but not in front.

In reply to MG:

Usain Bolt finishes his sprinting races further forward than his fellow competitors. It does help ease their bruised egos to know that at least he didn't finish in front of them.

In reply to ChrisBrooke:

Well he doesn't.  He finishes first.  If he finishes in front either he or the others get disqualified for leaving their lane.  It's actually quite a good comparison.

In reply to MG:

I know. It's also a victim of some amusing equivocation on the phrase 'in front', which I'm enjoying.

In reply to MG:

Ah, pedantry that has no bearing on the reality of the situation described. I’m with you now.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

It's key.  In front (as the HWC states) is the correct position for turning right.  To the left is not, will cause confusion, and means a lane change is required  so the right of way isn't there

(of course cars shouldn't be overtaking at junctions either, so it's all a tangle).

In reply to MG:

Maybe I’ve missed something, but I’m not aware of Trevers saying anything about being in a different lane to the car. 

In reply to MG:

You stupid, rude person.

In reply to TheGeneralist:

You're fat and smell.

Doesn't get us very far does it?

In reply to MG:

Life isn't perfect and road situations are rarely perfect. What does it matter *why* he was to the left of the ASZ? He could have had to stop to adjust some clothing, or maybe he'd planned on going straight on but realised he now needed to go right. He was ahead of the car, clearly signalled right twice and so the correct response is to shrug one's shoulders and let him go right, not gun it, and undertake with horn blaring. That's an imperfect situation being turned into a dangerous one entirely through the actions of the driver.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Yep, agree with all that.

No it wasn't.  He was also at fault for not turning right correctly and causing confusion.  The correct reponse would be to "shrug one's shoulders" and let the car go  

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

What is an ASZ? Or as ASL? Not familiar with them. Looked them up but no help.

In reply to Robert Durran:

"Bicycle box" - the coloured boxes at traffic lights so cyclists have some space.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Advanced Stop Line or Zone.

Or 'Bike Box'.

You should be familiar with them. If not, its time to brush up on your knowledge of the Highway Code.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I am very familiar with them. I just hadn't seen the acronyms before and was also wondering whether they were same thing.

In reply to Trevers:

Driver wrong .. all agreed.

I think there is a question, as always, though to determine "because the driver behaved badly does that automatically mean that the cyclist was correct"?  And I think, based on reading this, that that hinges on whether there was or was not a correct place for you to position yourself within the Advanced Stop Line/Bike box if you were wanting to turn right?.

So this is what I'm looking at:  https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/docum...

Cycle Infrastructure Design 9.2.1

Signalised junctions are one of the safest types of junction for cyclists. An advanced stop line (ASL) arrangement with a cycle feeder lane will enable cyclists to pass queuing motor vehicles on the approach and take up the appropriate position for their intended manoeuvre before the signals change to green.

ASLs were originally introduced to reduce conflict between cyclists and motorists when pulling away from rest at signal controlled junctions. The conflicting movements generally occur where;-

• cyclists go ahead and motorists turn left, and
• motorists go ahead and cyclists turn right

Cyclists also derive benefit from ASLs in the following ways. They;-

• Make it easier for right hand turning cyclists to position themselves in the best location.

Where traffic signal phases are short and queues rarely form cyclists are likely to arrive at the signal head at green with other moving traffic. In these circumstances a nearside lane may encourage right-turning cyclists to position themselves badly within the reservoir.

There is certainly no rules per say, as far as I can find, regarding where a cyclist must position him/herself i.e. you are not guilty of any traffic infraction.  But I think there is clearly an expectation that if you're turning right, and an ASL is present, that you use the box to position yourself center/center-right/right of the box.  I do not think, upon reading that PDF, that the intended purpose of the ASL was for you to hang out left on the curb then cut across the ASL to go right.

Note also that some ASL boxes, for example at T-junctions, are split down the middle with a left and right box albeit likely joined together.  In this situation it is clearly expected that cyclists turning left are in the left box and cyclists turning right are in the right box.  

Still incorrect for the driver to beep at you.  That's just road rage.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yep. Advanced Stop Zone/Line.

In reply to Trevers:

You have not done anything wrong in this situation and the driver is completely at fault. 

If there is one lane for traffic to queue in at traffic lights then each vehicle or cyclist should make their manoeuvre in turn. The person  at the front goes first, second in line goes second and so on. I would never expect someone to overtake an individual turning right, regardless  of how they are positioned. For anyone who disagrees with this, please just imagine the idiocy of overtaking a vehicle that is indicating  right. Same goes if it a cyclist indicating right. In this case You the cyclist were first, the idiot driver was second. You had right of way to make your manoeuvre, they should have waited.

Saying all that, personally I would never position myself at the kerb as a cyclist, I would always take a central position. This is not intended to be victim blaming. More so, many drivers are a***h**** and cannot be trusted to do the safe and correct thing, therefore cyclists have to take additional measures beyond what they should do, to make sure the driver cannot put them in danger. 

In reply to MG:

The car (whose intentions are unknown), or all the cars behind them? If one then why not all? Does one forfeit progression by being imperfectly aligned in an ASZ?

By far the safest resolution of that situation is letting the cyclist go. That's the reason for ASZs in the first place.

In reply to MG:

Busted. The question is, how did you know?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Well yes. I think we've all ended up in the wrong lane at times. It's a pain but you can't just signal and barge in if others aren't being helpful - you have to wait for a gap.

In reply to MG:

But he wasn't in the wrong lane. 

If there were two or more lanes and someone in the left lane decides they want to turn right instead, and need to be in the right lane, they indicate and wait for a gap.

As far as I understand, there was one lane, Trevers was at the front on the left side of the lane, they indicated right, tried to turn right and the driver decided that was a good time to blast past. Nobody was in the wrong lane because there was only one lane!

If I am mistaken and there was more than one lane please let me know.

Let's take another scenario. Say there is one lane at a set of traffic lights and there are options to go straight on, left or right from that one lane. A car is at the front of the queue, positioned close to the kerb (on the left), the car is indicating right, there is a queue of cars behind. 

Since this car at the front is not in the optimal position for turning right, should the drive behind:

a) overtake them and blast past honking the horn?

Or

b) wait behind until the indicating car has completed its manoeuvre and perhaps think 'hmm that car looks a little to the left of where I would expect someone to be for turning right, but they're indicating right so I guess that's where they are going'

I suspect every sane person would choose b)

In reply to Ryan23:

I suspect it's actually half way between the two. Enough width to feel like two lanes (particularly with a bike on the left) without actual markers. 

If it were two cars like this I'd think the same - the one out of position needs to be cautious - I certainly wouldn't assume cars behind would let me in if it were me. The one behind likewise faced with ambiguity should hang back.. What is certain to lead to conflict is either or both pushing on regardless, as here.

In reply to MG:

Yes, obviously one of those road situations where you ideally make eye contact and hold back until it is understood who is giving way.

In reply to Ryan23:

In my roundabout example above, there were two lanes. I took the centre of the left hand lane. She took the right hand lane, and then turned across me on the roundabout.

I did ask her if she would have done that had I been driving a car; overtake a car on a roundabout and then cut across them. No dice; I should have looked at her indicator...

I suspect the problem was that the roundabout is approached from a single, narrow lane (with oncoming traffic in the opposite lane), which widens into two for the roundabout. I 'take the lane' in the narrow bit, so cars can't try to unsafely force their way through, and then pull over when the lane widens enough for them to enter the second lane. She was probably angry that I delayed her for a couple of seconds on the narrow bit.

In reply to MG:

Maybe take a look at Rule 178 and associated guidance?

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/answers/how-should-you-negotiate-a-traffic-...

"Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows."

In reply to Ryan23:

I'm a fierce proponent of primary position in most situations.

In this specific situation, there's two things to consider. First is that, as I said, I consider the additional speed with which I can move into and clear the junction helpful from a safety perspective. Even though I have to move slightly further onto my correct line, I reach the point of turning on my correct line sooner. I also angle straight to my correct line immediately.

Secondly, I have knowledge of this specific junction, and I know that most of the traffic turns right. I've previously had altercations with similarly impatient drivers when I've positioned myself right in the box and they've attempted to jump around me anyway.

It's one of those situations where if the driver is a selfish bastard, you're at their mercy and without pre-empting their specific behaviour, there's no best way to approach the situation that accounts for every possibility.

In reply to MG:

You've twisted my words to make it sound as though my desire for a faster launch is due to impatience (not because of a safety benefit as I explained), then chosen to cast doubt on my assertion of aggressive driving.

You're a victim blamer. The driver was 100% responsible for her actions. I refuse to simper and pretend it's partially my fault because I didn't account for her ignorance and entitlement.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Sure, I'm not saying the car wasn't at fault too.

In reply to Trevers

It's that attitude that leads to problems. Some reflection and ability to be self critical goes a long way to reduce accidents. "I'm perfect" doesn't.

In reply to MG:

I've literally already accepted that my positioning may not have been ideal, while also making the point that in this situation there is no perfect positioning.

But I'm not the one who chose to ignore the very clear signals of a cyclist in front and dangerously manoeuvre my car around them.

The situation occurred because an arrogant and entitled driver didn't want to wait 2 seconds to allow me safe passage. Trying to present this as some sort of 50/50 situation is victim blaming.

I also notice you've made a bunch of unfounded assumptions about the situation, and don't appear willing to accept that you may be mistaken in them.

In reply to Bobling:

I wasn't going to post this but as the thread has reignited what the hell?  My commute last Thursday. 

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I await your judgement...

...should they have been skateboarding on the pavement?

In reply to Bobling:

Well obviously you were in the wrong lane and the driver presumably thought you were intending to turn left and also you didn't check your mirrors.

I hope you're alright and didn't get hit?

I actually know that very stretch of road and have cycled it many times. I always thought the danger point was about 50m further down where cars enter/exit the side road right before the church.

In reply to Bobling:

Seems blatantly the car's fault to me.

In reply to Trevers:

Given that to be the case, and your familiarity with the junction, will you be changing your behaviour with regard to your positioning? 

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I'll approach it on a case-by-case basis, as I always have done. But if you'll note in my response to Ryan23, the positioning that some are claiming would have avoided any trouble here has previously caused trouble with other drivers turning right.

Let's say the driver behind me had been turning right, and I'd been positioned in the box as they recommend, and she decided to impatiently force her way past. Would people still be trying to apportion some of the blame on me? I'm sure of it.

The problem here is bad driving. My positioning in the box was neither here nor there, because a good driver would have given me the time and space to safely proceed. We all make mistakes and errors of judgement, and road design is not always clear. But if people drive with care and treat other road users with respect, and let minor errors slide, there is no problem. Choosing to ignore my signal, attempting to speed past then undercutting while angrily blasting the horn is not a mistake. It's a symptom of an attitude that should automatically disqualify anybody from getting behind the wheel of a car.

So yeah, I'm sick of the attitude expressed by MG and some others on this thread, which is that at least some part of the blame must lie with the cyclist if their standard of cycling falls even slightly short of perfect. I'm perfectly capable of self-reflection and learning from mistakes, but that's very different to looking for excuses to justify bad driving. That attitude is part of the problem on the roads.

In reply to Bobling:

Well, as your lights were on green, the car evidently must have gone over on red.

I therefore suggest that the car driver broke the law, and furthermore deserves shopping to the Police. A definite dangerous action.

In reply to Trevers:

Why?  I doubt anyone would blame you for following the rules of the road.

It's *a* problem.  Bad cycling is another. 

I'm sick of angry-man, holier-than-thou cyclists unable to accept their behaviour can ever be a contributory factor to near-misses/accidents.

Clearly not (and no one has justified bad driving - in fact in all the discussion above it's been highlighted as a problem).

In reply to fred99:

IIRC those lights are simply pedestrian crossings so it's not a light controlled junction. The exit is of the merge-when-clear variety with a stop line.

In reply to MG:

You've failed to convincingly demonstrate that I broke any rules of the road.

There was no "bad cycling" on display here.

What then, in your opinion, is the breakdown of blame for this incident?

Yet you've gone out of your way to make assumptions about the situation or cast doubt on my telling of events, which all happen to be favourable towards the driver.

In reply to Bobling:

Technically probably not, but one can hardly blame them when venturing into the road would probably result in being taken out by an angry, victim-blaming cyclist wielding a lethal 10kg metal weapon.

In reply to Trevers:

I'm quite positive that no one would blame you if you positioned yourself in the box center/center-right, as you are expected to use the box to do (why is the box across the entire width of the lane if not to allow cyclists to safely position themselves for their next maneuver) and a car turning right then proceeds to plough you down.  I can't ever imagine how you could be found at fault in that situation - even on the glorious UKC forums. 

I think MG has unnecessarily wound you up (ignore him).  The driver was clearly at fault in the situation you have shared.  

Perhaps rather than trying to reduce this into a binary who is right and wrong.  Maybe a sliding scale would be better. Driver = F  (everyone except MG agrees I think), You = B.  

I think people are likely now taking issue with you positioning yourself that will only use the bike box as you see fit to use it.  That's probably not in anyone's best interests.

A better response would simply be to position yourself assertively when you arrive in the bike box (that is not victim blaming) so that the car physically cannot pass you until you have made your maneuver.  That's what I do - I don't care if the cars don't like it.  I don't leave it up to the driver to drive well .. I make sure they cannot get the option to do something dangerous.  I'll die if they screw up .. they won't.

Keep riding mate!

In reply to MG:

And yet you are the one inventing imaginry rules and ranting and raving away.

One is far more dangerous than the other.

Odd that considering that overwhelmingly the holier than thou types are car drivers who, perhaos because the last time they looked at the highway code was forty years ago when they did their test, decide to invent new sections to hold cyclists against whilst driving like complete idiots.

In reply to StuPoo2:

To allow multiple cyclists in perhaps? I dont think there is any "expectation" that you would hold anything other than the normal position. Personally I would go for centre just to try and put off incompetent drivers but as far as I am aware the only requirement would be the arm signal.

Nah you would still have holier than thou angry little drivers complaining that the cyclist was taking up the lane and they should be doffing their caps and keeping by the kerb to allow their betters past.

In reply to mondite:

I've quoted the HWC verbatim, which Trevers, by his account, wasn't following.  That's not making up rules.  Probably in a couple of posts I've raved a bit - I'm not a robot.

In reply to Trevers:

On your account, I'd suggest 20% cyclist 80% driver.

In reply to mondite:

See my post further up thread - https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/biking/why_are_they_so_angry-752258?v=1#x...

I think that maybe there is.  But of course maybe I am wrong.

So true! 

In reply to StuPoo2:

Seriously, why do you think that?  I have repeatedly pointed out the driver was at fault.  

In reply to Trevers:

I don't drive. I'm a cyclist. I disagree.

Take the lane. Use your road position as a clue to your intentions. I don't get your 'using the kerb to push off'; I don't have any problem starting in the road.

Yes, dickhead drivers may still try to overtake you turning right, but your road position makes that harder, unless they are prepared to simply drive over you.

I find I have to slow down for cars when turning right at those sort of junctions.

In reply to MG:

Fair.  Conceded. I shall leave you to your battle with Trevers. 

In reply to MG:

No you have chosen a rule from the HWC and decided to apply it to Trevers. You have chosen the general turn right rule rather than the traffic light controlled junction rules which is a bit of a stretch (incidently I do like the reference to moving rightwards in the lane. Seems somewhat quaint considering how wide cars have got nowadays).

However we can skip over that since more significantly cyclists have their own set of rules in the HWC and the one which applies here is Rule 73.

"Position yourself in the centre of your chosen lane, where you feel able to do this safely, to make yourself as visible as possible and to avoid being overtaken where this would be dangerous. If you do not feel safe to proceed in this way, you may prefer to dismount and wheel your bike across the junction."

Note the reference to "feel to do this safely". Its not a requirement and is something which needs weighing up against other factors eg Trevers specifically states that the faster start " was in their eyes safer to get ahead of the drivers. Personally I am not convinced by that logic but its not unreasonable with the use of hand signals to ensure the driver knows what you are doing.

In reply to mondite:

Err, yes.  As far as I aware there isn't a "Trevers exception" clause in the HWC.

Well fine, but I'll let you suggest to Trevers he should have been wheeling his bike.  I fear he may explode in righteous anger.

In reply to MG:

Errr there isnt. There is however a specific rule for cyclists which you in your holier than thou superiority complex failed to read. 

This is the problem with most holier than thou cardrivers. They almost certainly last looked at the highway code when they did their test and rely on a vague memory and a bit of googling when trying to reinforce their prejudices.

In reply to mondite:

So we now have two possibilities 1) Follow the general rule of a central or rightwards position or 2) get off and walk.  I don't think this changes anything regarding the above discussion.

In reply to MG:

I have no idea what you are trying to argue now. It is telling however you arent willing to admit you quoted the wrong rule in your holier than thou anger.

In reply to mondite:

Likewise!

Because I didn't!!  It's a general rule.

In reply to MG:

But the rule doesn't say that I must either position myself centrally or get off and push. It's written as advisory in nature.

In reply to Trevers:

I give up.  Carry on disregarding rules and advice if you must.  You'll probably get hurt.

In reply to Trevers:

The scary thing is they are probably driving around subconciously judging cyclists for not living up to their interpretation of the rules and frothing ever more with anger.

In reply to mondite:

Tbh you come across as the one frothing in anger.  MG seems to me to be calmly expressing his views.  As seems usual on UKC (reflection of the outside world) any hint of subtley or nuance is shouted down. 

Of course, you might well not be frothing in anger.  Point is that it's a little tricky to guess the state of mind of someone based on a posting in an internet forum.  Unless of course you were just trying to use childish insults to disparage the person who disagreed with your views?  Nah - couldn't possibly be that.

In reply to Trevers:

Quite frankly I think that your failure to see things in anything other than almost completely black and white terms might end up with you dead.

Yes, I'm sure that if it you had been hit by the car as you crossed in front of it and it had come to acourt of law then you would have been seen as the victim and the driver entirely to blame. But that's not much good to you if you are dead. If you had positioned yourself in front of the car or in front and to the right as advised in the highway code then it is virtually certain that there would not have been a problem.

Drivers make honest mistakes, drivers get confused by odd behaviour and, yes, some drivers are arseholes. If you refuse to take account of this while asserting your rights as a cyclist, then, as I said, you may well end up dead.

If I had been the driver in this case, I would certainly have found it odd that you had positioned yourself on the left while indicating right and I would, I think, have held back and given you space to sort yourself out. Another driver might, as I said earlier, have assumed you were indicating your intention to move right when there was a space to do so and moved off.

In reply to Trevers:

Nah we both came to a stop, but it was close.  I too have cycled this bit of road hundreds of times and as you say that turning is usually the danger area, I've had van drivers practically go round it on two wheels after accelerating like crazy to get past me then hard brake and sharp left turn.

I accept and will reflect on your criticisms with due humility : )  I'd also point out I ended up on the pavement which is obviously against the HWC.

Less humourously, relevant to the thread, and local to us both - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-63134820

In reply to Petrafied:

Yes he was so calm when he stated "I'm sick of angry-man, holier-than-thou cyclists". I think that sort of calmness is something to be emulated especially when combined with the quoting of the wrong rule for the situation.

In reply to mondite:

FFS.   Given I have been called rude, ignorant, deserving of losing my licence etc etc, that's a pretty mild (and accurate) statement.

Since you are so keen on reading the HWC, I have done it for you.  The very first sentence under rules for cyclists says "These rules are in addition to those in the following sections, which apply to all vehicles".  I quoted a rule that follows.  Perhaps you need to do some homework?

In reply to Trevers:

Just had another look at the pictures, and the first two definitely show green for the direction of travel for the cyclist. Therefore the lights for the dark coloured car that is cutting across in front must have been on red.

In reply to MG:

Awesome well done. I look forward to your special interpretation.

I know this is a complicated idea but what do you think takes precedence. A rule specifically about using cycle facilities at a light controlled junction or a general rule about turning right in general?

Especially given "At junctions with no separate cyclist facilities, it is recommended that you proceed as if you were driving a motor vehicle".  Given those facilities did exist which rule do you think wins?

Perhaps you need to do some homework before you next drive a ton or so of steel around. The great thing about bad cyclists is that whilst they are being crap at cycling they aint driving and so are a lower, although not nonexistant, risk to me and others.

In reply to mondite:

Just to rewind,

- You say I made rules up

-I point out I quoted the HWC

- You say that clause doesn't apply to cyclists

-I quote the text stating it does

- You can't admit you made a mistake and resort to making up something about precedence, even thought there is not contradiction.

Incidentally, I have 25 years of completely clean driving and I last had a cycle accident in 1994.  Maybe I am  lucky, or maybe I am on to something with following the rules and being cautious?

In reply to fred99:

Sorry fred99, you quote the text without apparently reading it the same way as I read it - there is no light control at the drivers junction, they have not gone through a red light. 

In reply to MG:

The only way to eliminate the risk of getting hurt is to avoid cycling. Following the rules is no guarantee of safety. But you're labelling me a rule-breaker (rather than someone who arguably made a minor but understandable error of judgement in this case) and telling me that this is the reason why I'll get hurt. That's a victim-blaming mentality.

The attitude you've expressed towards the subject is a threat to my safety in general than my approach to and style of riding, about which you know next to nothing.

In reply to fred99:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4358894,-2.5542886,3a,75y,7.23h,85.45t/da...

This is the view for the drivers joining that stretch of road. There's no light for them at all. The light that you do see is for drivers continuing straight, not turning right to merge into the road that Bobling was on.

None of which changes the fact that the driver drove directly into the path of another road user.

In reply to mondite:

Sadly .. I have gone back to check mondite on this .. and I think he is correct.

The HighWay Code does specify the behavior of a cyclist at a junction and provides Trevers with 2x options ... neither of which he tells us he took.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82#ru...

Rules for cyclists (59 to 82) - Rule 73

Junctions. Some junctions, particularly those with traffic lights, have special cycle facilities, including small cycle traffic lights at eye-level height, which may allow you to move or cross separately from or ahead of other traffic. Use these facilities where they make your journey safer and easier.

At junctions with no separate cyclist facilities, it is recommended that you proceed as if you were driving a motor vehicle (see Rules 170 to 190).

Position yourself in the centre of your chosen lane, where you feel able to do this safely, to make yourself as visible as possible and to avoid being overtaken where this would be dangerous. If you do not feel safe to proceed in this way, you may prefer to dismount and wheel your bike across the junction.

I then went on to investigate Trevers comment that some parts of the highway code are legal and some parts are advisory - this being a part that is advisory only.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction

Wording of The Highway Code

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Okay .. so it would appear that Trevers is correct in this regard but I think has failed to share some key information.

I think we all concluded earlier that Trevers broke no laws .. and Rules for cyclists (59 to 82) - Rule 73 appears to support that.  There is no MUST/MUST NOT and there is no link to the traffic act as part of Rule 73.  So we're good there.

I don't think it follows though because this is not legal requirement .. that it is therefore "advisory" as Trevers has suggested it is. 

It might not be possible to prosecute Trevers for breaking highway code #73 ... but is suspect it very much means that any road incident that occurs as a result of Trevers breaking of code #73 is unlikely, if you tried to prosecute the driver, return a result in Trevers favor.   

I think there is a risk that Trevers could be found partially liable because he didn't follow the code.  The code only gave him only 2x options to choose from 1) Position yourself in the centre of your chosen lane .. if you feel safe to do so or 2) Dismount and wheel your bike.  By his own admission .. he chose option #3 .. stay to the left of the ASL/Bike Box with a foot on the curb.

(Wow .. sad day for me today)

In reply to MG:

Yes because you were making up claims about road positioning at a traffic controlled junction.

Which a)isnt even the one for drivers at a light controlled junction and b)isnt the one specifically for cyclists.

Actually I didnt. I said there is a specific rule for cyclists.

Yes of course. The specific rules for cyclists at light controlled junctions dont actually apply but have just been put there for fun.

Wow you are my hero. Oh wait I have more than 25 years of perfectly clean(ish) driving (no accidents and no tickets but like pretty much anyone I have sped from time to time and have made mistakes hence the ish) and no cycle accidents at all (discounting mountain biking none of which involved any innocent bystanders) so ermm your point caller?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Where have I expressed things in black and white? How is it controversial to state that the driver was fully responsible for her actions?

I have literally detailed situations where positioning myself in those spots has led to problems. So what's the perfect position that will ensure that no driver will hassle me? It doesn't exist.

Ok, let's consider a different (and very common) scenario. I'm cycling along a narrow, two way street with parked cars either side. Taking the correct primary position defends me from the possibility of an inopportune overtake from a slightly impatient driver behind. But now let's assume that instead of the impatient/ignorant 10%, the driver behind is the entitled arsehole 1%. He assumes that I'm holding my position only to annoy him. He tailgates me aggressively, blasts his horn at me and as soon as the slightest opening appears, squeezes past in a punishment pass which could very easily result in me dead.

So can you please explain to me what I could have done to mitigate every possible hazard.

You pretty much lay it bare here. The decent driver, faced with any possible uncertainty, would hold back. But the decent driver would have held back anyway because I was at the head of the queue regardless of my position. The bad driver thinks they are entitled to be ahead of me whatever, and so tries to force a way past. The problem is caused by bad drivers.

In reply to StuPoo2:

I wouldnt read it as a binary option. The latter is "may" which isnt even a should.

For liability there would be two other considerations.

Firstly did they signal correctly their choice of going right and secondly would the driver have been able to pass safely giving sufficent distance. Unless its a very unusual junction there is no way a driver could swing out safely before he would have moved out.

As before my preference would be to sit in front of the car initially but I can see sort of see the alternative and I strongly suspect the driver would have been as moronic behind me as they were to him.

In reply to mondite:

Very fair.

My point here is really is only to underscore that Trevers is incorrect is suggesting that he had zero part to play in this.   

I am not suggesting that his actions made him responsible, nor am I blaming the victim, nor am I diminishing the part of the driver ... but I think on the balance of things he didn't follow the code as he should or could have and that failure to do so likely caused confusion on the road for other users around him.

In reply to Bobling:

Dangerous driving and assault? I see attempted murder and ABH/GBH. A significant prison sentence and a lifetime ban from driving should be the absolute minimum.

Nice of the BBC to leave his details visible though. I hope his van gets a good vandalising.