# Jeremy Vine.



## simongt (31 May 2022)

Apparently, the above radio personality is being villified for reporting an HGV driver for a close pass that he filmed on his helmet cam recently. there's even a petition demanding that he to be sacked from the BBC because of this. 
Now, on the basis that he submitted said footage to the authorities, it's up to them to take what action they feel suitable; in this case the driver has been suspended, or not, depending on which information you believe.
This does pose the interesting question that, if it had been the likes of you or me who had submitted the footage, it would have hardly raised a ripple. But because of who it was, there's uproar. 
Hmm.


----------



## Twilkes (31 May 2022)

I can't find the clip, but there were a bunch of cyclists slowly riding side by side in a lane, nothing wrong with that, but the HGV was entirely in their lane, and a traffic policeman was so close to the white line on the right hand side that once the HGV passed he actually crossed the line unintentionally, at this point there were maybe three cyclists side by side in their lane. I'm all for safe passing but cyclists also have to help themselves, the only way for the HGV to give them more room was to cross over into the opposite lane when there was oncoming traffic, they shouldn't be required to do that if their own lane is fully clear.

Yes it's high profile because it's a celebrity, but also because Jeremy Vine has been fairly outspoken about this stuff and can be a bit of a dick about it at times. And it's not really the submitting of the footage of the police, it's posting it publicly with his level of profile, such that the police probably felt they had to be seen to do something, which they apparently did (or did not, I can't tell).


----------



## Bonefish Blues (31 May 2022)

Twilkes said:


> Jeremy Vine can be a bit of a dick at times.



That, really (My abridgement )


----------



## biggs682 (31 May 2022)

Twilkes said:


> Jeremy Vine has been fairly outspoken about this stuff and can be a bit of a dick about it at times.



Haven't we all at some point


----------



## Bonefish Blues (31 May 2022)

biggs682 said:


> Haven't we all at some point



Yes. It's only the size of our respective stages that differ.


----------



## Cycleops (31 May 2022)

Vine might indeed be a dick but it doesn't stop him being correct in this instance.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (31 May 2022)

He was/is.


----------



## fossyant (31 May 2022)

If it's the one with a bunch of high viz cyclists, their road positioning was shocking - the HGV was in it's lane, the cyclists all over the inside lane.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 May 2022)

simongt said:


> But because of who it was, there's uproar



I doubt it.

It’s far more likely that the uniformed police officer who was cycling with them and was possibly closest to the lorry when it passed, said on the video when it happened, “He’ll get undue care and attention for that.” Instant recognition from a cop on the scene that he judged an offence to have been committed.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 May 2022)

Here's the tweet with the video...


View: https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1528133860885770241?t=oeTuJawYLFwCfn3JLfNdEg&s=19


----------



## Twilkes (31 May 2022)

fossyant said:


> If it's the one with a bunch of high viz cyclists, their road positioning was shocking - the HGV was in it's lane, the cyclists all over the inside lane.



Yeah you don't ride with your elbow above the white line, and that was the police rider.


----------



## Sterlo (31 May 2022)

Whilst there are no rules regarding where the traffic cop was riding, he was nearly in the next lane himself. I agree the lorry was quite close but I would put the cyclist partly at fault for this one.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 May 2022)

Twilkes said:


> the only way for the HGV to give them more room was to cross over into the opposite lane when there was oncoming traffic



The driver of the large rigid HGV ahead of the Waitrose driver managed it fine.

If oncoming traffic prevents you from passing safely then you wait until it is safe.
A strip of paint does not relieve you of your responsibility to give cyclists room when passing them.


----------



## fossyant (31 May 2022)

I can only really see poor cyclist positioning there. No reason to be right over near that line.


----------



## Twilkes (31 May 2022)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The driver of the large rigid HGV ahead of the Waitrose driver managed it fine.
> 
> If oncoming traffic prevents you from passing safely then you wait until it is safe.
> A strip of paint does not relieve you of your responsibility to give cyclists room when passing them.



And yet the rider in blue in front of the police rider had zero problems with it, despite riding two abreast himself. The ground speed was low and the speed differential was probably only a few mph, if that had been me I would have just moved a little to the left, although I wouldn't have been in that position in the first place.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 May 2022)

Twilkes said:


> And yet the rider in blue in front of the police rider had zero problems with it



Where does he say that?


----------



## Twilkes (31 May 2022)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Where does he say that?



You can tell by looking, he had very little reaction to it, because he was a reasonable distance away from the white line, he reacted more to the police rider behind him shouting.

And I'm out.


----------



## The Central Scrutinizer (31 May 2022)

The driver didn't have a lot of room because the road was narrow and from what i could see he didn't cross the broken line.
now the driver is probably going to get a reprimand from his company and might even lose his job


----------



## T4tomo (31 May 2022)

Bloody cops need to learn to ride bikes they should be all booked in for @Drago's cycle craft courses...

Even as they pulled away at the end he was wobbling into an adjacent lane.

Definitely cycle in the centre of the lane, as you don't want to encourage anyone to overtake you in your lane, but don.t ride almost encroaching into the outside lane, where you should be expecting cars buses and trucks moving at a different speed to you.


----------



## ianrauk (31 May 2022)

T4tomo said:


> Bloody cops need to learn to ride bikes they should be all booked in for @Drago's cycle craft courses...



Thats the reason why it's crap riding more like. they probably did.
I see a good few cycle cops on my London commute.
Haven't seen a decent cyclist among them.


----------



## Phaeton (31 May 2022)

Are they not in a compulsory left turn lane & then go straight forward?


----------



## classic33 (31 May 2022)

Were the police acting as outriders?


----------



## T4tomo (31 May 2022)

ianrauk said:


> Thats the reason why it's crap riding more like. they probably did.
> I see a good few cycle cops on my London commute.
> Haven't seen a decent cyclist among them.



But he was the greatest cyclist who ever lived @ianrauk.


----------



## iandg (31 May 2022)

fossyant said:


> If it's the one with a bunch of high viz cyclists, their road positioning was shocking - the HGV was in it's lane, the cyclists all over the inside lane.



Cyclist (police) appears to drift closer to the outside of his lane as the lorry starts to pass - he needs to learn how to hold his line.


----------



## Milkfloat (31 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Are they not in a compulsory left turn lane & then go straight forward?
> 
> View attachment 647030



Look a few frames before and it shows straight on as well as left. Seems to be crap markings all around.


----------



## Milkfloat (31 May 2022)

The poor cycling from the Police does not excuse the poor driving from the lorry driver. However, I think we all know that if the cyclist was not a policeman there would be no prosecution.


----------



## nickb (31 May 2022)

Saddle way too low on that first copper's bike


----------



## presta (31 May 2022)

It seems to me that in a busy city centre, there's no point in making the lorry wait when the cyclists have ample room to keep away from the line, and the lorry doesn't. It's not a country lane.
Regarding due care & attention, the cop was wobbling right up to the line whilst he was gassing with Vine.


----------



## DCBassman (31 May 2022)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The driver of the large rigid HGV ahead of the Waitrose driver managed it fine.


My take is that the truck DOES edge closer to the line when there's no obvious need, as above. The cop also drifts right slightly, so 50-50...


----------



## Bonefish Blues (31 May 2022)

nickb said:


> Saddle way too low on that first copper's bike



The angle of the camera makes it look like he's riding a kid's bike


----------



## Sallar55 (31 May 2022)

The Central Scrutinizer said:


> The driver didn't have a lot of room because the road was narrow and from what i could see he didn't cross the broken line.
> now the driver is probably going to get a reprimand from his company and might even lose his job


Narrow road? Cyclist usually cycle 1m out from curb add 1.5 m plus width of lorry. Here in France cars cross white line to overtake and if a car is coming in the opposite direction it normally moves over to road edge. Need to enforce the bigger rule. The biggest vehicle is automatically jugded to be at fault until all the facts are known.


----------



## Sittingduck (31 May 2022)

It's shLtty riding like that that gives us all a bad name etc etc. Copper giving it the big one prob because he was being filmed with Jeremy Vine in tow. Lorry did feck all wrong imho.


----------



## steveindenmark (31 May 2022)

Even cyclists cannot agree on this one. The LGV was totally in his lane and the viz vest policeman was also in his lane. The LGV driver cannot decide where in his lane he drives. But the police officer can. He could not have been closer to the LGV lane.


----------



## Milkfloat (31 May 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> Even cyclists cannot agree on this one. The LGV was totally in his lane and the viz vest policeman was also in his lane. The LGV driver cannot decide where in his lane he drives. But the police officer can. He could not have been closer to the LGV lane.



The lane marking is almost immaterial - if it is not safe to pass then the LGV should not have tried. Still crappy riding though.


----------



## Milzy (31 May 2022)

I think he’s great, people are more dickish on here than he is. Listen to him in the afternoon, a brilliant broadcaster.


----------



## Jody (31 May 2022)

Taking this to the extreme. If the rider is deemed to be riding correctly and the lorry still had to give them 1.5m, then surely 1 cyclists can hold 2 lanes of traffic up. 

I don't see the lorry has done much (if anything) wrong here. 

Take primary, ride two abreast, but you don't need to be scraping along the dividing line of the next lane unless turning right.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (31 May 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> The lane marking is almost immaterial - if it is not safe to pass then the LGV should not have tried. Still crappy riding though.



This. I would never try to pass a wobbly Bobby, or any other wobbler for that matter until I was sure it was safe.


----------



## Phaeton (31 May 2022)

So if we're saying that the lorry driver was at fault & shouldn't have overtaken without a clear 1.5M gap, what's the point of any cycle lane?


----------



## Bonefish Blues (31 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> So if we're saying that the lorry driver was at fault & shouldn't have overtaken without a clear 1.5M gap, what's the point of any cycle lane?



I said I wouldn't have overtaken an obvious wobbler?


----------



## Milkfloat (31 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> So if we're saying that the lorry driver was at fault & shouldn't have overtaken without a clear 1.5M gap, what's the point of any cycle lane?



Maybe not 'any', but a large percentages of cycle lanes are nonsense offering very little in protection to cyclists, often they make things significantly worse.


----------



## icowden (31 May 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> The lane marking is almost immaterial - if it is not safe to pass then the LGV should not have tried. Still crappy riding though.


But it is a big issue of human nature. If there are marked out lanes and I am in my lane, then the default behaviour is that I shouldn't have to worry about you in your lane, unless you wish to change lanes. As @Milkfloat indicated - whenever there are "marked" cycle lanes (you know the ones - that white line a foot and a half from the edge of the road) drivers will consider that you have a safe zone and that they don't need to pass in the same way as they would if there were no line.

In this case the HGV driver is within his lines - he is as wide as the lines in fact, and therefore does not consider the vehicles in other lanes, cars, bikes or otherwise. Yes, the cyclists could have moved over and been more considerate, he could also have waited, but the lines are guiding behaviour IMHO.


----------



## Phaeton (31 May 2022)

The solution is quite simple, just ban all HGV from ALL city centres 6am until Midnight daily, or preferably 24 hours a day, but a buss would have done exactly the same.


----------



## iandg (31 May 2022)

You could argue that the Police Officer was in breach of rule 66 of the Highway Code.


_Rule 66: Be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you, and allow them to overtake (e.g. by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so._


----------



## PK99 (31 May 2022)

icowden said:


> But it is a big issue of human nature. If there are marked out lanes and I am in my lane, then the default behaviour is that I shouldn't have to worry about you in your lane, unless you wish to change lanes. As @Milkfloat indicated - whenever there are "marked" cycle lanes (you know the ones - that white line a foot and a half from the edge of the road) drivers will consider that you have a safe zone and that they don't need to pass in the same way as they would if there were no line.
> 
> In this case the HGV driver is within his lines - he is as wide as the lines in fact, and therefore does not consider the vehicles in other lanes, cars, bikes or otherwise. Yes, the cyclists could have moved over and been more considerate, he could also have waited, but the lines are guiding behaviour IMHO.



Take the cyclists out of the picture, the driver does nothing wrong. Within his lane and appropriate speed.

Take the HGV out of the picture, riding so close to the lane divider is very poor road positioning by the cyclists.


----------



## Time Waster (31 May 2022)

So 1.5m passing distance rule doesn't apply to hgv in this case or all cases? Strict application of the rules then the lane markings mean nothing of they don't allow 1.5m passing distance.

Riding 2 abreast is considered best practise in larger groups as it creates a shorter length for other road users to overtake. If that's true for open roads why not for busy roads too.

Passing distance, does that apply to cyclists alongside other cyclists? I'm not sure about that but two abreast cyclists still need space between them and to the other side of them too. If the lane is narrow then it's not unreasonable to fill the lane up. 

Personally I don't think the whole situation is a good for anyone only bad all round. That's uk roads for you I guess and why we need real infrastructure for cycling.


----------



## Gwylan (31 May 2022)

simongt said:


> Apparently, the above radio personality is being villified for reporting an HGV driver for a close pass that he filmed on his helmet cam recently. there's even a petition demanding that he to be sacked from the BBC because of this.
> Now, on the basis that he submitted said footage to the authorities, it's up to them to take what action they feel suitable; in this case the driver has been suspended, or not, depending on which information you believe.
> This does pose the interesting question that, if it had been the likes of you or me who had submitted the footage, it would have hardly raised a ripple. But because of who it was, there's uproar.
> Hmm.



Think the post that observes that if any of us made such a report we would likely be ignored. Or dismissed as another BOF.

Putting aside my views on Mr Vine there are broader issues.

Based on a reasonable amount of cycling experience elsewhere in the world some points emerge.
Generally painting a line on a road does not protect a cyclist from nearby traffic. That is mostly political box ticking and that's it.
It does not make the road wider and makes life difficult for the poor lads and lassies who are expected to drive trucks down roads that are several feet or more too narrow for a safe passage 

Physically separating vehicles and cyclists is the way to go. That is what we see across our European neighbours. But they have been doing this for a long time.

Generally the UK is not a nation where there are that many cyclists. 
In places like Belgium and the Netherlands cycling is built into society and most drivers are or have been cyclists. 

We might also spare a thought for the dangerous state of that margin of the road that cyclists are expected to occupy. 
Whilst I'm on the rant will someone make it illegal to have the slits in drains lined in the direction of travel?

I'm going for a lay down now and Nurssie will bring my 6 o'clock medicine. She's late, just cannot get the help......


----------



## boydj (31 May 2022)

I think the key point to be made in regard to the OP is that it was not JV that reported the driver or asked for him to be reported, it was one of the cops who thought the lorry driver should have moved over or, better still, waited until he could give a safe passing distance.

We could be critical of the police cyclist position, but how often do we hear that it doesn't matter where the cyclist is, the driver must pass at a safe distance?


----------



## bonzobanana (31 May 2022)

I feel the HGV driver has done nothing wrong and was perfectly positioned in his lane. Like others I feel the police cyclist was very poorly positioned making it awkward for passing vehicles in the next lane. I feel the cyclist was not considering other road users. If I come out to pass stationary vehicles I normally go back in I guess to the middle or one third out from the pavement maybe to control the lane but not right up close to the next lane. I like to come down on cyclists side where possible but I really don't feel this is fair to the HGV driver. I don't believe Jeremy Vine should be sacked though regarding this and certainly don't believe the HGV driver should be punished either. Dare I say it but I think the police cyclist might need some additional road training.


----------



## mjr (31 May 2022)

iandg said:


> You could argue that the Police Officer was in breach of rule 66 of the Highway Code.
> 
> 
> _Rule 66: Be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you, and allow them to overtake (e.g. by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so._


And so, applying that rule, is the approach to a junction usually considered a safe place to overtake?

Really disappointed by the comments on here blaming the cyclist and excusing the trucker. Full on Stockholm Syndrome CC members, eh?


----------



## mjr (31 May 2022)

Gwylan said:


> Whilst I'm on the rant will someone make it illegal to have the slits in drains lined in the direction of travel?


While not illegal, Norfolk and Cambs councils both replace them with grid covers if you report them. Of course, it would be nicer if the roadworkers spotted them, but it's a start.


----------



## Time Waster (31 May 2022)

The HGV driver is positioned correctly in the lane but that does not let him off the safe passing distance. Not in my interpretation of the relevant rules. If that's wrong please show me even an advisory HC rule that says driving in no marked lane excuses the requirement to give cyclists a safe passing distance. 

All road users should not make a manoeuvre if it is not safe to do so or it breaks the rules in doing so. Road position really can't override the rules.

I really dislike cyclists defending the indefensible whether that's a cyclists or driver. Usually people on a cycling forum will argue night is day to defend a cyclist who did wrong. So it's unusual to get them ignoring things to defend a motorist who's in the wrong. It's a change but not a refreshing change just a saddening one IMHO. 

BTW do you think the unconfirmed claim the driver is suspended and might lose his job is affecting people's views? If he was just a private motorist driving a car without serious consequences do you think people on here would defend him so strongly?


----------



## PK99 (1 Jun 2022)

.


mjr said:


> Really disappointed by the comments on here blaming the cyclist and excusing the trucker. Full on Stockholm Syndrome CC members, eh?




As I am repeatedly disappointed on here by posts excusing any and all behaviours by cyclists when issues arise, rather than addressing the issue of good cycling practice.

Personally as a cyclist, I would never ride that close to a lane divider. If, for instance, I were passing stationary or slow moving traffic I would take primary in the adjacent lane to control traffic coming from behind. If the police cyclist felt there was not enough space for a safe pass, that is what he should have done. Especially as he was there in a protective role.

The truck driver did nothing wrong.


----------



## PaulSB (1 Jun 2022)

The group of cyclists is badly positioned and riding two up in this situation is poor practice whether it's allowed by the Highway Code or not.

The inside riders are too close to the kerb and the outside riders too close to the traffic. Their positioning means any protection the cycle lane offers is negated. To my mind the purpose of a city cycle lane is to provide a space for riders to use with some safety not to provide a lane in which people ride two up and chat.

Poor cycling and the police officer should have advised the riders on safe road positioning. I guess this is central London, two up in a cycle lane is dangerous and lacks consideration for other road users.

The lorry driver? Yes, it's a close pass, staying in your lane isn't an excuse for failing to give another road user the correct amount of space.

No medals for anyone involved.


----------



## PK99 (1 Jun 2022)

PaulSB said:


> The group of cyclists is badly positioned and riding two up in this situation is poor practice whether it's allowed by the Highway Code or not.



Two up, lined up : primary and secondary, would have been fine.

Look at the actual positioning of following pairs. They were offset and effectively 4 abreast. 

When I am back marking rides, and see the group ahead doing that, I advise riders accordingly. If in the group I model correct positioning. 

The Plod involved was a poor cyclist.


----------



## newfhouse (1 Jun 2022)

Not the greatest positioning from the cyclists, and reasonable for the driver to be annoyed about having to wait to pass them safely, but frustration isn’t sufficient reason to put them in danger with an undeniably close pass.


----------



## Time Waster (1 Jun 2022)

The cyclists did things wrong so the rules don't apply to me the driver is a defence I hope the hgv driver uses and that gets reported as much as this JV petition. 😉


----------



## iandg (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> And so, applying that rule, is the approach to a junction usually considered a safe place to overtake?
> 
> Really disappointed by the comments on here blaming the cyclist and excusing the trucker. Full on Stockholm Syndrome CC members, eh?



An urban situation with slow moving traffic in segregated lanes. Yes, I would consider it a safe place to overtake.

I'm not excusing the trucker but cyclists need to abide by rules as well. There is plenty of room to allow safe overtaking and the cyclist should have positioned himself in the primary position (i.e. centre of lane/closer to the kerb) to allow this to happen.

Edit: If you were involved in a dangerous close pass would you throw your hand up in protest (in this case before the vehicle has passed) or keep both hands on the bars and focus on staying safe/moving to a safer position?

Personally, my priority would be to make my self safe and only remonstrate if was looking for confrontation and only then if it was safe to do so.


----------



## CXRAndy (1 Jun 2022)

In that instance the Waitrose drive was driving in the outside lane and not veering into the lane where the police officer was a little too close to the centre line. Driver did nothing wrong in this instance.

Unlike the Porsche Cayenne driver yesterday who deliberately drove across the centre line coming towards me whilst I was riding two abreast with my wife on a country lane-Ar*ehole driver


----------



## iandg (1 Jun 2022)

Twilkes said:


> And yet the rider in blue in front of the police rider had zero problems with it, despite riding two abreast himself. The ground speed was low and the speed differential was probably only a few mph, if that had been me I would have just moved a little to the left, although I wouldn't have been in that position in the first place.



Which is exactly what cyclist behind did.


----------



## Phaeton (1 Jun 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> Look a few frames before and it shows straight on as well as left. Seems to be crap markings all around.



I saw that but from that marking though they are still in a compulsory left there is no other option available to them. Now you could be right & it's bad markings, but as somebody who has no idea where this is I would have moved into the lane to the right on seeing the left arrow.


----------



## iandg (1 Jun 2022)

Waitrose 'confident' that its HGV driver used 'correct positioning' in controversial Jeremy Vine video​


----------



## icowden (1 Jun 2022)

iandg said:


> Waitrose 'confident' that its HGV driver used 'correct positioning' in controversial Jeremy Vine video


In other words this:


> A Waitrose spokesperson said: "All our drivers are trained to the highest safety standards. We have investigated and closely examined the footage, including cameras fitted to our vehicle, and we are confident that our driver used the correct positioning while travelling on a narrow lane.”


Is the legal point that they are going to rely on if the driver is prosecuted. The law will then need to make a ruling as to whether the new guidance on passing cyclists applies where traffic is split into lanes, and whether the cyclists should have positioned themselves better in their lane.

It will be interesting to see if the police do issue a penalty.


----------



## newts (1 Jun 2022)

The only thing I get from the tweet, is that JV is a pretentious c#*#k, but I knew about that previously. The car in front of the lorry is also close but doesn't get mentioned. The person on a bike nearest the lorry was an utter fool in his postioning & will be a long time dead or severely injured if he continues to try proving his point adjacent to the white line.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> I saw that but from that marking though they are still in a compulsory left there is no other option available to them.


Paint on the road isn't sufficient to make it 
a compulsory left, legally. Was there a round blue sign?


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

PK99 said:


> As I am repeatedly disappointed on here by posts excusing any and all behaviours by cyclists when issues arise, rather than addressing the issue of good cycling practice.


Then take it up when it happens, but I somewhat doubt that the reliability of whether some people on here are up to date with what's considered "good cycling practice" given the opposition to riding two abreast in a lane wide enough and spouting the same old bull shoot we hear from motorists about being "effectively 4 abreast" if riders are not perfectly aligned through the whole group.



> Personally as a cyclist, I would never ride that close to a lane divider. If, for instance, I were passing stationary or slow moving traffic I would take primary in the adjacent lane to control traffic coming from behind. If the police cyclist felt there was not enough space for a safe pass, that is what he should have done. Especially as he was there in a protective role.


Riiiiight, so the complaining police cyclist was riding too far out but not as far out as he should have? 

What you do personally as a cyclist is beside the point because what the police cyclist did was legal and even if it wasn't, that wouldn't excuse the offence committed by the lorry driver. Our legal system does not normally accept "Freddy punched someone before I shot him" as justification.



> The truck driver did nothing wrong.


So you think overtaking a group of cyclists, with less than a metre space, in a truck, is fine if there's a bit of white paint on the road?


----------



## Phaeton (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> So you think overtaking a group of cyclists, with less than a metre space, in a truck, is fine if there's a bit of white paint on the road?



Hopefully that will be decided in court, because if it is then every city in the UK will grind to a halt, which isn't a bad thing.


----------



## icowden (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> What you do personally as a cyclist is beside the point because what the police cyclist did was legal and even if it wasn't, that wouldn't excuse the offence committed by the lorry driver. Our legal system does not normally accept "Freddy punched someone before I shot him" as justification.


Alleged offence. We have no evidence that the driver has been prosecuted for any offence.


mjr said:


> So you think overtaking a group of cyclists, with less than a metre space, in a truck, is fine if there's a bit of white paint on the road?



It doesn't matter what he thinks. What matters is, in the event of a prosecution, whether a court thinks his driving was or was not careless based on the evidence put in front of them.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

iandg said:


> An urban situation with slow moving traffic in segregated lanes. Yes, I would consider it a safe place to overtake.


Then I pray you don't drive!



> I'm not excusing the trucker but cyclists need to abide by rules as well. There is plenty of room to allow safe overtaking and the cyclist should have positioned himself in the primary position (i.e. centre of lane/closer to the kerb) to allow this to happen.


You sort of are excusing the trucker. 



> Edit: If you were involved in a dangerous close pass would you throw your hand up in protest (in this case before the vehicle has passed) or keep both hands on the bars and focus on staying safe/moving to a safer position?
> 
> Personally, my priority would be to make my self safe and only remonstrate if was looking for confrontation and only then if it was safe to do so.


You write as if you haven't been involved in many and I hope that continues for you.

I have and in those situations, I do often throw my hand up (actually, I usually sweep it out left to right first, and then up in the air, blessing the incompetent with a sign of the cross, because they need divine protection, as do all they meet). It's not remonstration or looking for confrontation, but more trying to wake the following drivers up into not slavishly following the offender and making another close pass. It's actually slightly better to do it before the vehicle has passed, while in the offenders' blind/low spot if possible, because then the offender doesn't usually see it and so a confrontation is less likely. I'm stable enough to take one hand off the bars and still have control (which is why I can signal turns) and by the point the vehicle is alongside, the immediate danger of collision has usually passed anyway.

Of course, when it's been a really bad close pass, I've not thrown my hand up because I've been too busy diving into the verge! Twice this year so far, same bit of road. I'm sure several people will be delighted to know that groups I'm in now generally ride two abreast through it, with the outer one near the white line, and it's reduced offending.


----------



## PaulSB (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Then take it up when it happens, but I somewhat doubt that the reliability of whether some people on here are up to date with what's considered "good cycling practice" given the opposition to riding two abreast in a lane wide enough and spouting the same old bull shoot we hear from motorists about being "effectively 4 abreast" if riders are not perfectly aligned through the whole group.
> 
> 
> Riiiiight, so the complaining police cyclist was riding too far out but not as far out as he should have?
> ...



I'd estimate that lane is 1.5 metres wide, this isn't sufficient space to safely ride two abreast. In my view good practice in this situation would be for one rider to be in the centre of the cycle lane. The inside riders in this clip are riding on the double red line which is far from safe. A slight deviation to the left and the rider is down and probably those behind him/her.

All the riders in this clip are creating danger for themselves by their lane position. The legality of their position, their right to use the lane in a particular way is irrelevant. The riding is flat out dangerous. Being legally correct is no help when one's six feet under or in a wheelchair.

The truck driver is also in the wrong. Legally he may be correct but again this is irrelevant.

There's no point in looking at the legality of the situation when the only relevant issue is safety. No one in this clip is driving or cycling safely. There could have been severe consequences.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Hopefully that will be decided in court, because if it is then every city in the UK will grind to a halt, which isn't a bad thing.


Not "grind to a halt". Wide vehicles on mixed-user urban roads will just have to cope with moving at cycling speeds, and these logistics companies will adjust their timings to account for that, probably by staying on motorways and ring roads for longer instead of trying to blast through towns too readily. I agree, that's not a bad thing.



icowden said:


> Alleged offence. We have no evidence that the driver has been prosecuted for any offence.


It can still be an offence even if you're never prosecuted for it.

Of course it's an alleged offence. That's the stage it's at, as far as we know. Goes without saying.



> It doesn't matter what he thinks. What matters is, in the event of a prosecution, whether a court thinks his driving was or was not careless based on the evidence put in front of them.


Oh that's a bit harsh. @PK99 matters to me. 

It's a bit difficult to see how a court would overrule the recent highway code rules on passing distances issued by the Minister and agreed by Parliament in a way that wouldn't be considered judicial usurpation of the legislative function... and I don't think this is a matter where a court would want to cause a constitutional crisis by challenging the separation of powers.


----------



## Jody (1 Jun 2022)

What would happen if this was a normal 2 lane road and trafic is approaching from the opposite direct. Are you saying ALL the opposing traffic should stop because they can't leave a sufficient 1.5 meter gap? Even though they are completely within their lane.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

PaulSB said:


> I'd estimate that lane is 1.5 metres wide, this isn't sufficient space to safely ride two abreast.


Are we watching the same video? This one with the Waitrose truck?







That's a regular all-traffic carriageway lane they're in. There's no way it's 1.5m wide. It's probably closer to the 2.2m minimum than the 3.7m recommended, but even 2.2m is OK for cycling two abreast, isn't it? Fark, 2.5m is considered OK for two cyclists to pass each other in opposite direction at full chat IIRC.

If you'd like more confirmation that it's not 1.5m wide, at 14 seconds in, you can see the famous old tube trains of The Village Underground in the top-left of shot. That means they're about here on Great Eastern Street, heading north: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.523...4!1s1IAnhRa7gFj1Ju2kvdW89w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192



PaulSB said:


> In my view good practice in this situation would be for one rider to be in the centre of the cycle lane. The inside riders in this clip are riding on the double red line which is far from safe. A slight deviation to the left and the rider is down and probably those behind him/her.


The only time when I spotted the inside riders on the outermost double red line is when Waitrose driver passes them, causing the outside riders to move in slightly, which in turn causes the inside riders to move in. Within acceptable safety margins IMO, especially as all but one rider seem to be on steady and sturdy hybrid/MTB/city bikes, not twitchy HDAU road bikes (remember the famous collision between a city bike and a road bike in Blackfriars Underpass: city bike wobbled a bit, road bike cartwheeled).



PaulSB said:


> All the riders in this clip are creating danger for themselves by their lane position. The legality of their position, their right to use the lane in a particular way is irrelevant. The riding is flat out dangerous. Being legally correct is no help when one's six feet under or in a wheelchair.


I agree with you about the futility of being legally correct if there's a collision, but I completely disagree that the riders are creating significant danger for themselves. They are using the road normally, legally and, as far as I can tell, in accordance with current advice in the Highway Code and the National Standard for Cycle Training. The danger is created by the close pass and I feel that your views on positioning may be mistaken due to misestimating the lane width.


----------



## PK99 (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Not "grind to a halt". Wide vehicles on mixed-user urban roads will just have to cope with moving at cycling speeds, and these logistics companies will adjust their timings to account for that, probably by staying on motorways and ring roads for longer instead of trying to blast through towns too readily. I agree, that's not a bad thing.
> 
> 
> It can still be an offence even if you're never prosecuted for it.
> ...



The recent highway code changes did not change the law.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

Jody said:


> What would happen if this was a normal 2 lane road and trafic is approaching from the opposite direct. Are you saying ALL the opposing traffic should stop because they can't leave a sufficient 1.5 meter gap? Even though they are completely within their lane.



No, I'm not saying that. That wouldn't be an overtake, so IIRC only a 1m gap is required by the Highway Code rules (and even that depends on interpretation I think), plus in practice both parties could see it coming and adjust position accordingly.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

PK99 said:


> The recent highway code changes did not change the law.



Indeed. The argument is that they merely clarified where the dividing line between careful and careless already was. In which case, it's even more difficult to see a court choosing to disagree with the legislature.


----------



## iandg (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> No, I'm not saying that. That wouldn't be an overtake, so IIRC only a 1m gap is required by the Highway Code rules (and even that depends on interpretation I think), plus in practice both parties could see it coming and adjust position accordingly.



Cyclist saw the lorry passing and had plenty of room to adjust his position accordingly. He didn't start to raise his hand until half the lorry length had passed. He chose to do that instead of change his position.


----------



## iandg (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Then I pray you don't drive!
> 
> 
> You sort of are excusing the trucker.
> ...



Yes, I do drive and regularly drive delivery vans (twice/week).

I'm a competent cyclist. I raced road and track into the mid 80s, cycle commuted all my working life (9 years across north of Birmingham using the Queslett/Newton Rd and Sandwell Valley crossing the Scott Arms at Great Barr twice a day).


Cycling since 1973 and been "knocked off" twice. Many more incidents where I've relied on skill/ability to avoid accident.

Far less incidents now that I'm old and relaxed compared to when I was young and aggressive. I've developed a more tolerant attitude to other road users with age and don't regard it as an us/them situation.


----------



## DaveReading (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Paint on the road isn't sufficient to make it
> a compulsory left, legally. Was there a round blue sign?


No.


----------



## winjim (1 Jun 2022)

I don't think passing in an adjacent lane constitutes an overtake, and my interpretation of the HC would suggest the same. To my mind an overtake is a manoeuvre involving pulling out, passing and then pulling back in again. My opinion is that this sort of overtake requires greater care and a wider passing distance than simply trundling along in one's own lane.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

iandg said:


> Cyclist saw the lorry passing and had plenty of room to adjust his position accordingly. He didn't start to raise his hand until half the lorry length had passed. He chose to do that instead of change his position.


You are replying to a reply to a question about "trafic is approaching from the opposite direct" so the above is conflating two points.

Plus, I think you're slightly wrong because the cyclist who raised his hand was looking forward all the time and so did not see the lorry before it started the close pass, so had no opportunity to adjust position until too late, even if there was plenty of room. I know that looking round is a good thing, but you can't always do it as much as you'd like on a busy city street, so we have to require overtakers to overtake safely.


----------



## iandg (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> You are replying to a reply to a question about "trafic is approaching from the opposite direct" so the above is conflating two points.
> 
> Plus, I think you're slightly wrong because the cyclist who raised his hand was looking forward all the time and so did not see the lorry before it started the close pass, so had no opportunity to adjust position until too late, even if there was plenty of room. I know that looking round is a good thing, but you can't always do it as much as you'd like on a busy city street, so we have to require overtakers to overtake safely.



He would have seen the lorry out of the corner of his eye as soon as it started to pass as did the cyclist behind him (a few seconds earlier in the video) who changed position to avoid incident. He would have seen it in peripheral vision a lot sooner than when 50% of the container had passed by.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> I don't think passing in an adjacent lane constitutes an overtake, and my interpretation of the HC would suggest the same. To my mind an overtake is a manoeuvre involving pulling out, passing and then pulling back in again.


Well, firstly, unless there's traffic in the left lane to overtake, you're turning right or the left lane is somehow restricted, one should normally be in the left lane and not middle-lane-hogging.

Secondly, I can't see how phrases in the HC like "use the middle lane only for overtaking or turning right", "Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right", "you may use the middle lanes or the right-hand lane to overtake" and many more have a sensible interpretation if passing in an adjacent lane isn't an overtake.



> My opinion is that this sort of overtake requires greater care and a wider passing distance than simply trundling along in one's own lane.


Fair enough, it's your opinion, but there's currently no such qualification in HC Rule 163.


----------



## PK99 (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Well, firstly, unless there's traffic in the left lane to overtake, you're turning right or the left lane is somehow restricted, one should normally be in the left lane and not middle-lane-hogging.
> 
> Secondly, I can't see how phrases in the HC like "use the middle lane only for overtaking or turning right", "Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right", "you may use the middle lanes or the right-hand lane to overtake" and many more have a sensible interpretation if passing in an adjacent lane isn't an overtake.
> 
> ...



Hwc 162 and 163 clearly envisage an overtaking manoeuvre as involving pulling out, passing and pulling back in. @winjim is correct


----------



## T4tomo (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> You are replying to a reply to a question about "trafic is approaching from the opposite direct" so the above is conflating two points.
> 
> Plus, I think you're slightly wrong because the cyclist who raised his hand was looking forward all the time and so did not see the lorry before it started the close pass, so had no opportunity to adjust position until too late, even if there was plenty of room. I know that looking round is a good thing, but you can't always do it as much as you'd like on a busy city street, so we have to require overtakers to overtake safely.



He was too busy being a cock and playing for the camera. The whole procession was a wobbly slow sideshow looking for an excuse to scream naughty motorist. Near the end of the clip he wobbles into the next lane. 

All your arguments seem to be treating a a multi lane carriageway in the centre of London like a rural norfolk lane.


----------



## winjim (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Secondly, I can't see how phrases in the HC like "use the middle lane only for overtaking or turning right", "Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right", "you may use the middle lanes or the right-hand lane to overtake" and many more have a sensible interpretation if passing in an adjacent lane isn't an overtake.



Because it describes a manoeuvre in which you pull back over to the left once you've passed. Hence an overtake by my definition.

However, I will say that the first sentence of rule 268 could be interpreted as contradicting my definition. It's almost as if the HC could do with some clarification.


----------



## Jody (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> No, I'm not saying that. That wouldn't be an overtake, so IIRC only a 1m gap is required by the Highway Code rules (and even that depends on interpretation I think), plus in practice both parties could see it coming and adjust position accordingly.



So back to it then. Surely guidance is given when you are both effectively in the same lane and you have to leave a 1.5 meter gap. 

Is there any distinction in the HC when both are travelling in the same direct on a dual lane road?


----------



## icowden (1 Jun 2022)

Jody said:


> Go back to it then. Surely guidance is given when you are both effectively in the same lane and you have to leave a 1.5 meter gap.
> Is there any distinction in the HC when both are travelling in the same direct on a dual lane road?


It's also worth stating that the highway code actually doesn't matter in terms of assessing whether an offence was committed. The consideration is whethe the driving was careless:


> Careless driving falls below the standard expected of a competent driver and includes driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.


So, did the Waitrose Driver's driving fall below the standard expected of a competent driver? If he is charged I suspect that the argument will be that the driver was aware of the cyclists and drove past them steadily, safely and as reasonably as he could, given the limitations of the road layout.


----------



## Alex321 (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> iandg said:
> 
> 
> > An urban situation with slow moving traffic in segregated lanes. Yes, I would consider it a safe place to overtake.
> ...



By that logic, nobody can ever drive in towns/cities where multiple lanes are all going the same way.

Those lanes are designed so that it *should* be safe for traffic in each lane to travel forwards independently of traffic in the lanes either side of them.

Whether that traffic is trucks or bicycles, or anything in between is irrelevant.

Good practice when overtaking normally is to give at least 1.5m distance between you and whatever you are overtaking (regardless of whether it is a cyclist or another motorist). But that really doesn't apply when there are multiple lanes in low speed limit areas such as that. If it did, then no traffic could ever move faster than the slowest vehicle on that road.

I wouldn't actually even call it "overtaking" when it is that sort of urban situation with multiple lanes full of traffic moving at different speeds.

I really don't think the trucker did anything wrong there. He stayed entirely within his own lane, and was only passing the cyclists slowly. The cyclists weren't doing anything wrong either, as they were also entirely within their own lane. 

But any "blame" for the gap being less than 1.5m rests equally on both IMO - but mainly on the road designers who made lanes so narrow that large vehicles CANNOT leave a 1.5m gap to the edge of their lane.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

icowden said:


> So, did the Waitrose Driver's driving fall below the standard expected of a competent driver? If he is charged I suspect that the argument will be that the driver was aware of the cyclists and drove past them steadily, safely and as reasonably as he could, given the limitations of the road layout.


Which looks to be disproved by the previous lorry overtaking wider, having waited for a gap in the oncoming traffic where they could move further right and not brush the lane line. Waitrose driver should have waited if there was not room for a wide enough pass.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> Because it describes a manoeuvre in which you pull back over to the left once you've passed. Hence an overtake by my definition.


Yes, and all the traffic in lane 2 in the video should pull back over to the left once they've finished passing things in the left lane. Hence they're overtaking by any definition.



> It's almost as if the HC could do with some clarification.


The driving theory test certainly could. There seem to be far too many drivers about labouring under a misapprehension that passing other vehicles isn't overtaking if there's magic paint on the road.



Jody said:


> So back to it then. Surely guidance is given when you are both effectively in the same lane and you have to leave a 1.5 meter gap.


Find it if you're so sure. 



> Is there any distinction in the HC when both are travelling in the same direct on a dual lane road?


Same direction = overtake = 1.5m.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

Alex321 said:


> By that logic, nobody can ever drive in towns/cities where multiple lanes are all going the same way.


How are you reasoning that?



> Those lanes are designed so that it *should* be safe for traffic in each lane to travel forwards independently of traffic in the lanes either side of them.
> 
> Whether that traffic is trucks or bicycles, or anything in between is irrelevant.


No, it's very relevant. Those lanes are designed so it should be safe for SOME traffic. We know that there are many lanes which are too narrow for use by larger vehicles. Sometimes there are even signs reminding drivers of large vehicles to straddle lanes.



> Good practice when overtaking normally is to give at least 1.5m distance between you and whatever you are overtaking (regardless of whether it is a cyclist or another motorist). But that really doesn't apply when there are multiple lanes in low speed limit areas such as that. If it did, then no traffic could ever move faster than the slowest vehicle on that road.


So what's the problem with that? There's no God-given right to drive at the speed limit all the time and it's a 20mph road anyway, so there won't be a big speed difference between fastest and slowest. Plus, not all vehicles are so wide that they cannot leave 1.5m gap and even the wider ones could overtake when there's gaps in the oncoming traffic.



> I wouldn't actually even call it "overtaking" when it is that sort of urban situation with multiple lanes full of traffic moving at different speeds.


So what would you call it? Drag racing?



> I really don't think the trucker did anything wrong there. He stayed entirely within his own lane, and was only passing the cyclists slowly. The cyclists weren't doing anything wrong either, as they were also entirely within their own lane.
> 
> But any "blame" for the gap being less than 1.5m rests equally on both IMO - but mainly on the road designers who made lanes so narrow that large vehicles CANNOT leave a 1.5m gap to the edge of their lane.


Yes, the road designers share some responsibility for producing a trap of a layout, probably under pressure from politicians who spent decades pushing to maximise throughput at the expense of everything including lives, but I feel that the silly trucker had two options more than the cyclists to avoid the danger: wait until it was possible to steer wider; or not overtake. From the looks of them, the cyclists could not really speed up to 20mph to make overtaking unnecessary and legally impossible; and riding narrower only works up to a point (once singled out and in secondary, they couldn't go narrower safely) and would be against current advice anyway.


----------



## PK99 (1 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> Because it describes a manoeuvre in which you pull back over to the left once you've passed. Hence an overtake by my definition.
> 
> However, I will say that the first sentence of rule 268 could be interpreted as contradicting my definition. It's almost as if the HC could do with some clarification.




Hwc 268 relates to motorways


----------



## Alex321 (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Well, firstly, unless there's traffic in the left lane to overtake, you're turning right or the left lane is somehow restricted, one should normally be in the left lane and not middle-lane-hogging.
> 
> Secondly, I can't see how phrases in the HC like "use the middle lane only for overtaking or turning right", "Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right", "you may use the middle lanes or the right-hand lane to overtake" and many more have a sensible interpretation if passing in an adjacent lane isn't an overtake.


Those are all predicated on regular dual-carriageway type situations, not the urban multiple lanes with markings for different directions situation we had here.


----------



## winjim (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Yes, and all the traffic in lane 2 in the video should pull back over to the left once they've finished passing things in the left lane. Hence they're overtaking by any definition.


That's not how lanes work in a busy city. For example you can use the left lane to go straight ahead, but if you want the ring road west you are encouraged to use the right lane. Left lane's full of bus stops, you're not gonna weave in and out in a big lorry.


----------



## winjim (1 Jun 2022)

PK99 said:


> Hwc 268 relates to motorways



I know, but I'm trying to consider my definition of overtaking generally rather than in any specific situation. For example, I wouldn't consider passing a 50mph middle lane hogger on the left to be overtaking, but some interpretations of rule 268 might not agree with me.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> That's not how lanes work in a busy city. For example you can use the left lane to go straight ahead, but if you want the ring road west you are encouraged to use the right lane. Left lane's full of bus stops, you're not gonna weave in and out in a big lorry.


I've driven and ridden in many busy cities. It's how lanes are supposed to work in this country, but there's a lot of incompetents abusing lanes and pretending we're in the USA where lane-sitting is the rule. If a driver can't cope with bus stops properly, should he be driving a big lorry in a busy city?


----------



## Time Waster (1 Jun 2022)

Does it matter what the cyclists did if the issue with the petition is about getting JV sacked for being wrong for reporting a hgv driver who close passed cyclists?


----------



## BoldonLad (1 Jun 2022)

The video should not have been shared on twitter, or, anywhere else. Our local Police Force specifically asks that video sent to them, reporting an incident, is not shared in this way.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Jun 2022)

Time Waster said:


> Does it matter what the cyclists did if the issue with the petition is about getting JV sacked for being wrong for reporting a hgv driver who close passed cyclists?


I would be surprised if the incident had been reported by JV, despite many being keen to attribute it to him just because it’s his video.

You can see from the video that one of the police officers states, “He’ll get a due care and attention for that.” That suggests to me that the officer did his job with no need for a 3rd party report.


----------



## Jody (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Same direction = overtake = 1.5m.



It's not as clear cut as that.


----------



## Phaeton (1 Jun 2022)

@mjr if we take @winjim's image posted #94 make it a set of traffic lights with the Ring Road not being a straight ahead but a right turn. There are 20 cyclists in the left lane 2 abreast stopped at the red light, but the right hand lane has a green filter by your logic nobody could over take those cyclists & make the right turn which would totally defeat the object of having the filter in the first place.

You appear to see this as very black & white, not the grey that is the HC


----------



## DRM (1 Jun 2022)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I would be surprised if the incident had been reported by JV, despite many being keen to attribute it to him just because it’s his video.
> 
> You can see from the video that one of the police officers states, “He’ll get a due care and attention for that.” That suggests to me that the officer did his job with no need for a 3rd party report.


Quite possibly not, there will also be cameras on the truck in the windscreen, and down both sides of the vehicle, if they show that the driver went past without deviation from his/her lane, no excess speed or revs, and show PC Wobble incapable of riding in a straight line, then J.V and the Met could end up with egg on for their faces, also the rigid builders merchant truck could well be narrower than the Waitrose Artic too, so not a fair comparison


----------



## iandg (1 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> The video should not have been shared on twitter, or, anywhere else. Our local Police Force specifically asks that video sent to them, reporting an incident, is not shared in this way.



Too many near miss videos appearing on social media for my liking. They do nothing but fuel the cyclists Vs car arguments. We all need to be more tolerant and respect all road users.


----------



## boydj (1 Jun 2022)

Time Waster said:


> The cyclists did things wrong so the rules don't apply to me the driver is a defence I hope the hgv driver uses and that gets reported as much as this JV petition. 😉



That's not the way it works. The driver has to deal properly with what is in front of him.


----------



## boydj (1 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> I don't think passing in an adjacent lane constitutes an overtake, and my interpretation of the HC would suggest the same. To my mind an overtake is a manoeuvre involving pulling out, passing and then pulling back in again. My opinion is that this sort of overtake requires greater care and a wider passing distance than simply trundling along in one's own lane.



Are you changing dictionary definitions now?


----------



## Time Waster (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Are we watching the same video? This one with the Waitrose truck?
> 
> View attachment 647116
> 
> ...



If you spin around in that Google maps link you see the same building on the right as in the video, the curved end one. That's also a vauxhall vivaro van of the same model as I have. It is well within the lane markings where the cyclists in the video were riding. Since that van is 1.94m or 2.205m with mirrors included you can estimate that the lane in question is at least 2,2m wide probably a bit wider. Certainly not a 1.5m wide lane but likely 2.5m wide I reckon. Plenty wide enough for 2 abreast.


----------



## Time Waster (1 Jun 2022)

boydj said:


> That's not the way it works. The driver has to deal properly with what is in front of him.



My point was that I hope he uses that defence as it would be so easy to shut that defence down. That once that happens the press report it so other motorists can hopefully make note of it.


----------



## iandg (1 Jun 2022)

Time Waster said:


> My point was that I hope he uses that defence as it would be so easy to shut that defence down. That once that happens the press report it so other motorists can hopefully make note of it.



They weren't in front of him. They were in a different lane and he stayed in his. 😉


----------



## SpokeyDokey (1 Jun 2022)

Late to this but just watched the vid' and I don't think that would've bothered me tbh.


----------



## Time Waster (1 Jun 2022)

boydj said:


> Time Waster said:
> 
> 
> > Does it matter what the cyclists did if the issue with the petition is about getting JV sacked for being wrong for reporting a hgv driver who close passed cyclists?
> ...





Time Waster said:


> My point was that I hope he uses that defence as it would be so easy to shut that defence down. That once that happens the press report it so other motorists can hopefully make note of it.





iandg said:


> They weren't in front of him. They were in a different lane and he stayed in his.


Sorry about the multiple quoting it's not work quite right but I think you can follow the posts OK. 

Basically I didn't say anything about lane position just that there seems to me that there's a lot of excusing the truck driver because the cyclists were not doing things perfectly right in people's views. If the driver used that as a defence it would not work I'm pretty certain. So I hope that if it ever went to court he used it as a defence and lost in a way that got widely reported so that motorists and cyclists become aware of the case through mass media.

IMHO we need as many successful close pass driving offence prosecutions as possible and for them to be widely reported. Without such prosecutions and publicity understanding of close passing issues will not get through to all but the worst drivers.


----------



## iandg (1 Jun 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Late to this but just watched the vid' and I don't think that would've bothered me tbh.



Ditto. I was the sort of cyclist who used to happily weave between the wing mirrors of slow moving traffic switching from different lanes to join the flow that matched my speed when I worked in and commuted to West Bromwich.

Having lived on Isle of Lewis/Harris for 21 years with many miles on single track roads I've also become comfortable with very close passing traffic. In most cases a car would have needed to be in the ditch bog to have given me 1.5m


----------



## PK99 (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Indeed. The argument is that they merely clarified where the dividing line between careful and careless already was. In which case, it's even more difficult to see a court choosing to disagree with the legislature.



I'm inclined to think that you do not properly understand the English law making process.


----------



## classic33 (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Yes, and all the traffic in lane 2 in the video should pull back over to the left once they've finished passing things in the left lane. Hence they're overtaking by any definition.
> 
> 
> The driving theory test certainly could. There seem to be far too many drivers about labouring under a misapprehension that passing other vehicles isn't overtaking if there's magic paint on the road.
> ...


And if the lanes are marked for direction of travel?


----------



## Alex321 (1 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> How are you reasoning that?


Because most lanes in most urban areas are not wide enough to give 1.5m between vehicles.


mjr said:


> No, it's very relevant. Those lanes are designed so it should be safe for SOME traffic. We know that there are many lanes which are too narrow for use by larger vehicles. Sometimes there are even signs reminding drivers of large vehicles to straddle lanes.


Sometimes, but not often in town, and not usually intended for regular width trucks/.




mjr said:


> So what's the problem with that? There's no God-given right to drive at the speed limit all the time and it's a 20mph road anyway, so there won't be a big speed difference between fastest and slowest. Plus, not all vehicles are so wide that they cannot leave 1.5m gap and even the wider ones could overtake when there's gaps in the oncoming traffic.



The problem with that is that it isn't the way those types of road are designed to be used. Those roads are intended for the traffic in each marked lane to be able to move independently of each other, and to basically be able to ignore traffic in adjoining lanes, so long as they are staying in their current lane.




mjr said:


> So what would you call it? Drag racing?


I can't imagine why you could even conceive of calling it any type of racing.

I would just describe it as traffic in separate lanes moving independently.

Overtaking is when you come up behind another vehicle, pull out to overtake it, then pull back in when the manoeuvre is complete (which may mean after overtaking several vehicles).



mjr said:


> Yes, the road designers share some responsibility for producing a trap of a layout, probably under pressure from politicians who spent decades pushing to maximise throughput at the expense of everything including lives, but I feel that the silly trucker had two options more than the cyclists to avoid the danger: wait until it was possible to steer wider; or not overtake. From the looks of them, the cyclists could not really speed up to 20mph to make overtaking unnecessary and legally impossible; and riding narrower only works up to a point (once singled out and in secondary, they couldn't go narrower safely) and would be against current advice anyway.


No, it wouldn't be against current advice. I don't have a clue what advice you think it is against. 

But even without going single file, they could have ridden further from the line.


----------



## Arrowfoot (2 Jun 2022)

Poor situational awareness by the police officer. Those lanes are smaller, the big vehicles struggle to keep in lane and that vehicle remained in its lane. The next lane is opposing traffic so no chance to move there. There was not need for officer to cycle close to the edge and could have taken the cue from the riders in front of him. 

He looks new to cycling on busy roads. A bit wobbly as well.


----------



## boydj (2 Jun 2022)

iandg said:


> Ditto. I was the sort of cyclist who used to happily weave between the wing mirrors of slow moving traffic switching from different lanes to join the flow that matched my speed when I worked in and commuted to West Bromwich.
> 
> Having lived on Isle of Lewis/Harris for 21 years with many miles on single track roads I've also become comfortable with very close passing traffic. In most cases a car would have needed to be in the ditch bog to have given me 1.5m



Cars don't wait in passing places for cyclists? Or vice-versa? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.


----------



## iandg (2 Jun 2022)

boydj said:


> Cars don't wait in passing places for cyclists? Or vice-versa? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.



I was always courteous to other road users with regard to passing places - some motorists (a minority) were not


----------



## Ming the Merciless (2 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> but even 2.2m is OK for cycling two abreast, isn't it?



A modern Volkswagen Golf is 2 metres wide. The point of riding two abreast in that lane is to prevent some motorist thinking that’s is fine to overtake a single cyclist in that lane. If it was just one cyclist you’d be in the centre of that lane anyway. Two abreast removes any doubt that the lane isn’t wide enough for any motorist to overtake the cyclists.


----------



## wafter (2 Jun 2022)

I don't think it helps our cause that he's such a massive tosser..


----------



## Gunk (2 Jun 2022)

wafter said:


> I don't think it helps our cause that he's such a massive tosser..



I agree, he is the equivalent of the Daily Mail does a radio show.


----------



## wafter (2 Jun 2022)

Gunk said:


> I agree, he is the equivalent of the Daily Mail does a radio show.



Indeed! Like a Jeremy Kyle aimed at the middle classes; the DM to Kyle's Sun


----------



## DRM (2 Jun 2022)

Arrowfoot said:


> Poor situational awareness by the police officer. Those lanes are smaller, the big vehicles struggle to keep in lane and that vehicle remained in its lane. The next lane is opposing traffic so no chance to move there. There was not need for officer to cycle close to the edge and could have taken the cue from the riders in front of him.
> 
> He looks new to cycling on busy roads. A bit wobbly as well.



Got to agree, for me I would be using all my senses of what’s going on around me, with a quick check over the shoulder to see what’s coming if I heard the approach of something obviously larger than a car, and wouldn’t be wobbling about so close to the white line on my right side, whilst there was trucks coming past, I think PC Panic button should stick to foot patrols, he’s a liability on a bike


----------



## mjr (2 Jun 2022)

Has no one else on here done the odd tactical wobble to try to discourage a driver from being a daffodil?


----------



## iandg (2 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Has no one else on here done the odd tactical wobble to try to discourage a driver from being a daffodil?



No - I ride confident and like to show I'm in control of the situation.

Have to admit tho', when driving, if I see a "wobbler" I give them more room.


----------



## Alex321 (2 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Has no one else on here done the odd tactical wobble to try to discourage a driver from being a daffodil?



Never even thought about doing that TBH.


----------



## classic33 (3 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Has no one else on here done the odd tactical wobble to try to discourage a driver from being a daffodil?


Bit late when the vehicle is halfway past you, and its rear axles are approaching you from behind.


----------



## DRM (3 Jun 2022)

Having just watched the video again, PC Wobble is too far out, deliberately in order to cause problems, yet the riders in t-shirts are still 2 abreast, but are slightly closer together, the truck doesn’t cause them a problem at all, this is just clickbait for his pathetic excuse of a radio show


----------



## winjim (3 Jun 2022)

DRM said:


> Having just watched the video again, PC Wobble is too far out, deliberately in order to cause problems, yet the riders in t-shirts are still 2 abreast, but are slightly closer together, the truck doesn’t cause them a problem at all, this is just clickbait for his pathetic excuse of a radio show



I've also watched it again and I think if I was driving that lorry, seeing the cyclists positioned as they were, I might assume they were perfectly happy for me to pass them like that. The fact that they were very visible with police written on them, as pointed out by Vine, might even suggest that they were a confident rider who was comfortable being fairly close to traffic.


----------



## winjim (3 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Has no one else on here done the odd tactical wobble to try to discourage a driver from being a daffodil?



No, never. I do ride quite far out to the right in order to give myself an escape route to the left if somebody gets too close. So I can change my position instead of waving my arms about and shouting.


----------



## DRM (3 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> I've also watched it again and I think if I was driving that lorry, seeing the cyclists positioned as they were, I might assume they were perfectly happy for me to pass them like that. The fact that they were very visible with police written on them, as pointed out by Vine, might even suggest that they were a confident rider who was comfortable being fairly close to traffic.



I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head, you would think that the Police would have confident experienced riders out on bicycles, not a wobbly nervous Nelly, they wouldn’t let someone out in any other vehicle representing the Met, who can’t handle it correctly


----------



## winjim (3 Jun 2022)

DRM said:


> I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head, you would think that the Police would have confident experienced riders out on bicycles, not a wobbly nervous Nelly, they wouldn’t let someone out in any other vehicle representing the Met, who can’t handle it correctly



Especially as they're riding on the outside of the group, they look like they're in a protective position.

Do we know who all these riders are anyway? Is it an organised group or just a couple of coppers and a bunch of randos?


----------



## Jody (3 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Has no one else on here done the odd tactical wobble to try to discourage a driver from being a daffodil?



No


----------



## wafter (3 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Has no one else on here done the odd tactical wobble to try to discourage a driver from being a daffodil?



I tend not to do this on the bike, but do often play the unconfident driver (gently left-foot braking at junctions / bends to give brake lights but lose no speed) when I'm being tailgated. 

I believe there was a study some time ago that concluded that drivers gave cyclists without helmets more room because they perceived them as more of a hazard / more vulnerable.


----------



## Time Waster (3 Jun 2022)

They gave blonds with long hair the most room apparently. A study carried out by a uni research group tested that and the male researcher wearing a long blonde whig got similar space to a blond female rider.

Can't show you the source but it was on a cycling forum in na link to the research years ago.


----------



## Phaeton (3 Jun 2022)

Time Waster said:


> They gave blonds with long hair the most room apparently. A study carried out by a uni research group tested that and the male researcher wearing a long blonde whig got similar space to a blond female rider.
> 
> Can't show you the source but it was on a cycling forum in na link to the research years ago.



LOL, this reminds me of last Monday when we went into Pizza Hut with the grandkids, people were coming to the door to be seated, they were being left waiting there several minutes before one of the waitresses would go over to talk to them & show them to their table. Then two young ladies came in, very slim, scantly dressed, the manager a young male was there in under 20 seconds, I never saw him escort any other customers to their seats in the hour we were there.


----------



## DRM (3 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> Especially as they're riding on the outside of the group, they look like they're in a protective position.
> 
> Do we know who all these riders are anyway? Is it an organised group or just a couple of coppers and a bunch of randos?



Road peace apparently, also at 1:31 one of their riders can't even set off properly, he fails to clip in and scoots along, possibly in too high a gear to get going, whilst Mr undue care and attention continues to wobble all over the place, what an epic fail from everyone involved.


----------



## Time Waster (3 Jun 2022)

There's definitely something wrong there! Don't you think?


----------



## winjim (3 Jun 2022)

DRM said:


> Road peace apparently, also at 1:31 one of their riders can't even set off properly, he fails to clip in and scoots along, possibly in too high a gear to get going, whilst Mr undue care and attention continues to wobble all over the place, what an epic fail from everyone involved.



Yeah, crosses into the other lane and nearly* ends up under a taxi.


*Emphasised for dramatic effect but it does look like the taxi driver has to take a moderate amount of evasive action.


----------



## newts (3 Jun 2022)

Pc Wobbly Gobshite didn't do himself any favours with his roadcaraft at the end of the video either. Didn't look back when moving off or after & crossing the white line, oh dear, kettle - pot & all that etc


----------



## DaveReading (3 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Has no one else on here done the odd tactical wobble to try to discourage a driver from being a daffodil?


When approaching a traffic island where there is (just) enough room for a car to squeeze past, but no way they can do so safely IMHO - yes.


----------



## iandg (3 Jun 2022)

DaveReading said:


> When approaching a traffic island where there is (just) enough room for a car to squeeze past, but no way they can do so safely IMHO - yes.



Be confident, move into the primary position and don't give them room to pass.


----------



## newfhouse (3 Jun 2022)

DRM said:


> Road peace apparently, also at 1:31 one of their riders can't even set off properly, he fails to clip in and scoots along, possibly in too high a gear to get going, whilst Mr undue care and attention continues to wobble all over the place, what an epic fail from everyone involved.


Cyclists that are less than - it would appear - Cycle Chat expert level are still entitled to use the roads with some expectation of safety, despite making mistakes. Some of the riding was not great but errors like that shouldn’t cost lives merely to allow groceries to be delivered on time. It’s the overtaking lorry that had the means to cause harm, not the riders, so the driver should have slowed and waited for a safe opportunity to pass. The alternative is to accept that somehow the cyclist “deserved it.”


----------



## DaveReading (3 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> The alternative is to accept that somehow the cyclist “deserved it.”


No, it's perfectly possible to conclude he was an idiot without expecting that he should pay the price for it.


----------



## newfhouse (3 Jun 2022)

DaveReading said:


> No, it's perfectly possible to conclude he was an idiot without expecting that he should pay the price for it.



So, to be clear, should the lorry have waited for an opportunity to pass with a wider margin than we saw?


----------



## wafter (3 Jun 2022)

Time Waster said:


> They gave blonds with long hair the most room apparently. A study carried out by a uni research group tested that and the male researcher wearing a long blonde whig got similar space to a blond female rider.
> 
> Can't show you the source but it was on a cycling forum in na link to the research years ago.


lol - good job I've got long blond hair then


----------



## DRM (3 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> So, to be clear, should the lorry have waited for an opportunity to pass with a wider margin than we saw?



No, because the width of the road was sufficient for the LGV to pass, it wasn’t speeding, didn’t deviate from its lane, but the cycling plod was too far across, had crap bike handling skills, then at the lights, one of the road peace riders was incapable of setting off correctly, this was one massive own goal that has done no good to any cyclist, well done Jeremy Vine, Met Police and road peace


----------



## newfhouse (3 Jun 2022)

DRM said:


> the width of the road was sufficient for the LGV to pass


On this occasion it passed without causing injury. Are we saying that close passes are acceptable as long as no contact is made and that the white paint is not crossed? What is the point of the 1.5m guidance if 0.5m is normalised?


----------



## Phaeton (3 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> On this occasion it passed without causing injury. Are we saying that close passes are acceptable as long as no contact is made and that the white paint is not crossed? What is the point of the 1.5m guidance if 0.5m is normalised?



As @mjr has decided to ignore my question at Post 101 maybe you would like to answer it?


----------



## newfhouse (3 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> As @mjr has decided to ignore my question at Post 101 maybe you would like to answer it?



Is there a difference between a slow moving lorry passing stationary cyclists in order to turn right, and one that appears to be travelling at near the speed limit passing close to wobbly cyclists? I think there is.

Edit to add: feel free to answer my questions in post 147. They were in response to @DRM but a variety of views would be interesting.


----------



## Phaeton (3 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> Is there a difference between a slow moving lorry passing stationary cyclists in order to turn right, and one that appears to be travelling at near the speed limit passing close to wobbly cyclists? I think there is.
> 
> Edit to add: feel free to answer my questions in post 147. They were in response to @DRM but a variety of views would be interesting.



Why do you believe that a lorry turning right would be travelling at any other speed than the speed he was overtaking in the twitter clip?

In answer to your question, inappropriate speed, I spend most of my road riding on roads that are probably less than 4M wide, it would be physically impossible to give 1.5M on all occasions, as long as the overtaker does it with consideration then it's something we outside of the centre of the universe live with. What is unacceptable is when I get overtaken with less than 0.5M by cars doing 60-70mph when they are doing it on purpose & have no reason to do so.

If the 1.5M rule is to be adhered to then that road needs to have the white line removed & made into a single lane.


----------



## newfhouse (3 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Why do you believe that a lorry turning right would be travelling at any other speed than the speed he was overtaking in the twitter clip


All but the most foolhardy lorry driver would slow down for a sharp right turn whether traffic light controlled or not.



Phaeton said:


> In answer to your question, inappropriate speed, I spend most of my road riding on roads that are probably less than 4M wide, it would be physically impossible to give 1.5M on all occasions, as long as the overtaker does it with consideration then it's something we outside of the centre of the universe live with.


London and its suburbs is of course famous for having no narrow streets whatsoever 

The point is that a squishy human was doing something unwise such that there was a real risk of them being hurt. Like it or not, the driver has a responsibility to lessen the chances of that happening.



Phaeton said:


> What is unacceptable is when I get overtaken with less than 0.5M by cars doing 60-70mph when they are doing it on purpose & have no reason to do so.


We can agree on that, although I’m curious about when you think they _would_ have a reason to do so.



Phaeton said:


> If the 1.5M rule is to be adhered to then that road needs to have the white line removed & made into a single lane.


I agree. I think the white line gives a false sense of both safety and entitlement.


----------



## DRM (3 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Why do you believe that a lorry turning right would be travelling at any other speed than the speed he was overtaking in the twitter clip?
> 
> In answer to your question, inappropriate speed, I spend most of my road riding on roads that are probably less than 4M wide, it would be physically impossible to give 1.5M on all occasions, as long as the overtaker does it with consideration then it's something we outside of the centre of the universe live with. What is unacceptable is when I get overtaken with less than 0.5M by cars doing 60-70mph when they are doing it on purpose & have no reason to do so.
> 
> If the 1.5M rule is to be adhered to then that road needs to have the white line removed & made into a single lane.



I was going to reply, but @Phaeton has written what I was going to say, no point in repeating it, only a fool would ride so close to the white line on their right, my belief is this plod was trying to be a clever so & so who through lack of road craft has made the Alps out of a small pimple, he isn’t fit to be cycling on behalf of the met police and needs further training & experience, and was being deliberately provocative


----------



## BoldonLad (3 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> On this occasion it passed without causing injury.* Are we saying that close passes are acceptable as long as no contact is made and that the white paint is not crossed? *What is the point of the 1.5m guidance if 0.5m is normalised?



No.


----------



## Phaeton (3 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> All but the most foolhardy lorry driver would slow down for a sharp right turn whether traffic light controlled or not.


I believe you are speaking from a point of zero experience of driving a HGV in traffic, as to why you have invented a sharp right turn I'm unsure, I said right turn, which could be at as little as 10 degrees


newfhouse said:


> We can agree on that, although I’m curious about when you think they _would_ have a reason to do so.


You would have to ask them not me


----------



## DaveReading (3 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> Is there a difference between a slow moving lorry passing stationary cyclists in order to turn right, and one that appears to be travelling at near the speed limit passing close to wobbly cyclists?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it *was *a slow-moving lorry. Unless you have evidence that it was travelling in excess of the 20 mph speed limit ?


----------



## wiggydiggy (3 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> Has no one else on here done the odd tactical wobble to try to discourage a driver from being a daffodil?



Not a wobble but I have taken a more primary position after a close pass, especially if I can hear another vehicle coming.

This may or may not be sensible, but I sometimes wonder if they even saw me before close passing so in my head me moving out makes me more visible.

I was lucky that my old commute although on a busy A Road was quite wide, a lot wider than the one in the original video and a lot of it you can pass with a 1.5m gap and not need to cross the centre line.


----------



## newfhouse (3 Jun 2022)

DaveReading said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it *was *a slow-moving lorry. Unless you have evidence that it was travelling in excess of the 20 mph speed limit ?


I said:


newfhouse said:


> one that appears to be travelling at near the speed limit


Like you, I can’t judge from the video if it was under or over the limit but that’s not the point at issue. It passed a poorly positioned but highly visible cyclist too close. That’s the problem here.


----------



## mjr (3 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> As @mjr has decided to ignore my question at Post 101 maybe you would like to answer it?


You made various incorrect extrapolations but ask no question in that post and I'm enjoying time with family and friends this weekend, plus preparing for bike week UK next week so maybe you can understand why I was not guessing your non question post wanted a reply.


----------



## newfhouse (3 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> I believe you are speaking from a point of zero experience of driving a HGV in traffic,


This is true.


Phaeton said:


> as to why you have invented a sharp right turn I'm unsure, I said right turn, which could be at as little as 10 degrees


Yes it could. Nevertheless, a careful driver of any vehicle probably wouldn’t race through a traffic light controlled junction at the maximum permitted speed, whatever the angle.


----------



## Phaeton (4 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> This is true.
> 
> Yes it could. Nevertheless, a careful driver of any vehicle probably *wouldn’t race through a traffic light controlled junction* at the maximum permitted speed, whatever the angle.


Where has the idea he was 'racing' come from?



mjr said:


> You made various incorrect extrapolations but ask no question in that post and I'm enjoying time with family and friends this weekend, plus preparing for bike week UK next week so maybe you can understand why I was not guessing your non question post wanted a reply.


Okay


----------



## newfhouse (4 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Where has the idea he was 'racing' come from?



It comes from turning through your invented junction at full speed. I accept that this is your fantasy scenario, not mine, so I may have missed a vital detail.

Are you sure we’d not be better focusing on things that definitely happened?


----------



## Phaeton (4 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> Are you sure we’d not be better focusing on things that definitely happened?



By all means but we differ on that as well, I accept it's not a particularly good road layout, but I don't see that the driver did anything wrong, he didn't deviate from his path, he didn't cross any white lines, he didn't appear to be speeding. 

In this layout of 2 separate lines I think it would be unrealistic to expect him to have waited behind this group of cyclists until such time s he could have overtaken with 1.5M clearance especially in a 20MPH zone. I don't like to victim blame but I do feel that the Police officer caused some of the perceived aggravation, his skills didn't appear to be as such that he should be given the duty of outrider.

Had there been bollards or a kerb between the 2 lanes the distances would not have changed, I do wonder had there been a kerb would the rider been as far out.


----------



## newfhouse (4 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> In this layout of 2 separate lines I think it would be unrealistic to expect him to have waited behind this group of cyclists until such time s he could have overtaken with 1.5M clearance especially in a 20MPH zone.


If I see a group of poorly positioned wobbly cyclists I try to give them more clearance than normal, not less, even if I am momentarily frustrated because they have cost me a few seconds of my day.

Nobody is perfect but simple mistakes should not be life threatening.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> If I see a group of poorly positioned wobbly cyclists I try to give them more clearance than normal, not less, even if I am momentarily frustrated because they have cost me a few seconds of my day.
> 
> Nobody is perfect but simple mistakes should not be life threatening.



Where you see poorly positioned wobbly cyclists another driver might see a confident experienced police officer riding in a protective position. As such, one might assume that the police officer is expecting, and has given implied permission for, traffic to pass him relatively closely on the off side, while keeping that traffic at a greater distance from the inexperienced riders on his near side.


----------



## newfhouse (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> Where you see poorly positioned wobbly cyclists another driver might see a confident experienced police officer riding in a protective position. As such, one might assume that the police officer is expecting, and has given implied permission for, traffic to pass him relatively closely on the off side, while keeping that traffic at a greater distance from the inexperienced riders on his near side.



I think that’s quite a stretch, and one I hope I wouldn’t make.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> I think that’s quite a stretch, and one I hope I wouldn’t make.



So are we just all going to agree that the police cyclists are a bit rubbish? Because if that's the case then they shouldn't be doing that job and are certainly in no position to accompany and advise others.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, if you ride close to the line like that, in those sort of road conditions, you are going to get passed that closely. They should be aware of that.


----------



## newfhouse (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> So are we just all going to agree that the police cyclists are a bit rubbish?


Yes.



winjim said:


> Regardless of the rights and wrongs, if you ride close to the line like that, in those sort of road conditions, you are going to get passed that closely. They should be aware of that.


Yes.

The contentious part is whether we should just shrug and accept that as if no behavioural change is possible. I don’t have a manifesto for how to make that change but I suspect education via well publicised prosecutions may form a part.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2022)

In driving past any cyclist, wobbly or not, and regardless of any strip of paint on the road, I give them at least 1.5m. If I can’t, I wait until it’s possible.

That’s all the artic driver needed to do.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> Yes.
> ...



Of course, there's lots of ways of looking at this. The driver's point of view, the road layout, the necessity of driving big lorries in city streets, provision of cycling infrastructure, even down to society, culture and the way we buy and consume the products which the lorries are delivering.

But all else being equal, from a cyclist's point of view I am concerned about the roadcraft of those police officers and the example they are setting to other cyclists.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

glasgowcyclist said:


> In driving past any cyclist, wobbly or not, and regardless of any strip of paint on the road, I give them at least 1.5m. If I can’t, I wait until it’s possible.
> 
> That’s all the artic driver needed to do.



Thing is, I'm not an artic driver so I'm not going to think about what the artic driver needed to do. I'm a cyclist so I'm going to think about what the artic driver is likely to do. And as s cyclist I think what happened was so likely to happen as to be essentially inevitable.


----------



## mjr (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> As such, one might assume that the police officer is expecting, and has given implied permission for, traffic to pass him relatively closely on the off side, while [...]


I don't think claiming "implied permission" is a great defence for committing an offence. Also, are there many offences which couldn't be excused by such a claim? Is cycling on the carriageway itself (rather than an adjacent or even faraway indirect cycleway) "implied permission" for motorists to close-pass you?


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> I don't think claiming "implied permission" is a great defence for committing an offence. Also, are there many offences which couldn't be excused by such a claim? Is cycling on the carriageway itself (rather than an adjacent or even faraway indirect cycleway) "implied permission" for motorists to close-pass you?



I dunno, what's your justification for deliberately impeding traffic in an adjacent lane?


----------



## DRM (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> Where you see poorly positioned wobbly cyclists another driver might see a confident experienced police officer riding in a protective position. As such, one might assume that the police officer is expecting, and has given implied permission for, traffic to pass him relatively closely on the off side, while keeping that traffic at a greater distance from the inexperienced riders on his near side.



Unfortunately the rest of the group were better positioned, the police officer was the one that needed looking after, mainly from himself, the Sergeant in front wasn’t much better


----------



## BoldonLad (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> Where you see poorly positioned wobbly cyclists another driver might see a confident experienced police officer riding in a protective position. As such, one might *assume *that the police officer is expecting, and has given implied permission for, traffic to pass him relatively closely on the off side, while keeping that traffic at a greater distance from the inexperienced riders on his near side.



"Assume", when driving an HGV, or, even a mere tonne of motorcar, I hope not. Personally, I prefer a driver to be just a little more diligent than that, particularly if it is MY life and/or well-being her/she is making assumptions about.


----------



## mjr (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> I dunno, what's your justification for deliberately impeding traffic in an adjacent lane?


It's called cycling two abreast along the carriageway, not "deliberately impeding traffic". Drivers should learn before getting licensed to overtake correctly and that overtaking is not a right.


----------



## iandg (4 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> It's called cycling two abreast along the carriageway, not "deliberately impeding traffic". Drivers should learn before getting licensed to overtake correctly and that overtaking is not a right.



_Be aware of drivers behind you, and allow them to overtake (e.g. by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so._

There are 2 lanes to allow for improved traffic flow. PC Plod didn't have to ride close to the outside edge of the lane he was cycling in, it was safe enough for him to move to his left or into single file. By not doing so he was therefore impeding traffic (if you are of the opinion that traffic in a different lane needs to give 1.5m space).


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

Even putting the term 'overtake' to one side since we disagree on its use, cyclists riding two abreast should not be commandeering two entire lanes.


----------



## simongt (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> the police cyclists are a bit rubbish?


Maybe the issue is the local sergeant asks 'oo can ride a bike - ?' Any volunteer is promptly sent out to do his / her stuff without any check on their ability or skill on said bike - ? 
When I was a peeler, everyone had to pass an ability test in a panda car ( yep, that long ago - ! ) accompanied by a member of the traffic dept. before they were allowed to drive said vehicle as part of their normal patrol duties.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> … cyclists riding two abreast should not be commandeering two entire lanes.



They didn’t.

As I’ve pointed out before, the preceding HGV managed a safe pass by only partially leaving his lane and the Waitrose driver could have followed that example. 

Whilst all road users should have due regard for their own and others’ safety, the H1 rule of hierarchy makes it clear that “those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others.”


----------



## Phaeton (4 Jun 2022)

simongt said:


> Maybe the issue is the local sergeant asks 'oo can ride a bike - ?'



Or maybe the local sergeant advised we have the local cock with the dwindling twitter account wanting to go out & trigger some non event, we drew straws in the backroom & you PC Wobble lost.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

glasgowcyclist said:


> As I’ve pointed out before, the preceding HGV managed a safe pass by only partially *leaving his lane* and the Waitrose driver could have followed that example.


He left his lane. The cyclists were commandeering two lanes.


----------



## Sittingduck (4 Jun 2022)

frankly, I can’t believe this debate is still ongoing. it’s no coincidence that copper and chopper are a mere letter apart.


----------



## BoldonLad (4 Jun 2022)

simongt said:


> *Maybe the issue is the local sergeant asks 'oo can ride a bike - ?' *Any volunteer is promptly sent out to do his / her stuff without any check on their ability or skill on said bike - ?
> When I was a peeler, everyone had to pass an ability test in a panda car ( yep, that long ago - ! ) accompanied by a member of the traffic dept. before they were allowed to drive said vehicle as part of their normal patrol duties.



I understand what you are saying, but, in these Health and Safety, Duty of Care times, I would have thought there would be "ability to ride a bicycle training", "Ability to ride a bicycle Certification", "Refresher Course in Ability to Ride a Bicycle". If this is not the case, then, perhaps, the "wobbly bobby" should be consulting a (no win no fee) Solicitor?


----------



## BoldonLad (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> He left his lane. The cyclists were* commandeering *two lanes.



"taking control of" surely?


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> "taking control of" surely?



Obviously not.


----------



## BoldonLad (4 Jun 2022)

Sittingduck said:


> frankly, I can’t believe this debate is still ongoing. it’s no coincidence that copper and chopper are a mere letter apart.



I find it very alarming, that, in a cycling forum, where, presumably, the majority of contributors are cyclists, there are so many "entitled driver" opinions. I do hope, for all of our safety, they (the holders of said opinions), are not also drivers.


----------



## newts (4 Jun 2022)

Perhaps it's the entitled cyclists that can't /won't accept that the actions of a cyclist in this video clip are questionble?


----------



## BoldonLad (4 Jun 2022)

newts said:


> Perhaps it's the entitled cyclists that can't /won't accept that the actions of a cyclist in this video clip are questionble?



Indeed, most unreasonable of those cyclists, fancy feeling entitled to arrive at the end of their journey safe and sound, most unreasonable of them. Just think off all that unnecessary slowing down by those beautiful big motor-vehicles.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

I don't know about 'entitled driver'. When I look at clips like this, I try to look at them as a cyclist and consider what I would have done in a similar situation, what I would have done differently, what I would have done the same, and how I would have reacted. I use it as a learning tool to improve my own roadcraft.

There's also an advocacy aspect to it but I'm not a lorry driver and won't ever be so I'm not all that interested in what the lorry driver should or could have done, only what they were likely to and in fact did do, and what other drivers might do in a similar situation, regardless of the rights or wrongs or legalities.


----------



## newts (4 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Indeed, most unreasonable of those cyclists, fancy feeling entitled to arrive at the end of their journey safe and sound, most unreasonable of them. Just think off all that unnecessary slowing down by those beautiful big motor-vehicles.



The expectation of every road user who sets out on a journey is to arrive home safe & sound. Being an entitled dick on a bicycle reduces your chances of getting home safely, we are extremely vulnerable.


----------



## BoldonLad (4 Jun 2022)

newts said:


> The expectation of every road user who sets out on a journey is to arrive home safe & sound. Being an entitled dick on a bicycle reduces your chances of getting home safely,* we are extremely vulnerable.*



Quite. Exactly what the recent recent revision of the Highway Code attempts to address, and exactly why drivers (I am a driver of a car and a larger vehicle) should exercise caution, observation, anticipation, and, perhaps, most importantly patience.


----------



## newts (4 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Quite. Exactly what the recent recent revision of the Highway Code attempts to address, and exactly why drivers (I am a driver of a car and a larger vehicle) should exercise caution, observation, anticipation, and, perhaps, most importantly patience.



Several posts back you accused many members of 'so many "entitled driver" opinions'. It's not about taking sides just for the sake of it, but looking at all the evidence in the clip. Perhaps you have missed the point being made in many posts, that a cyclist(s) in the original video could have acted with more due care & attention on the road.


----------



## BoldonLad (4 Jun 2022)

newts said:


> Several posts back you accused* many members* of 'so many "entitled driver" opinions'. It's not about taking sides just for the sake of it, but looking at all the evidence in the clip. Perhaps you have missed the point being made in many posts, that a cyclist(s) in the original video could have acted with more due care & attention on the road.



To be specific, I said there were many "entitled driver" opinions.

1. Many, as in, I would have expected few or indeed none, on a cycling forum

2. I did not count the number of posters who made such posts, so, I passed no opinion on that number

I did view the video. I agree, for their own safety, the cyclists would have been wise to improve their positioning, but, that does not (IMHO) absolve the driver of the HGV from taking due care and attention. He (or she) was driving a large vehicle, which barely fitted in the lane. 
We could argue that such a large vehicle should not be routed along that section of road, or, that the driver could have paused and waited for a safe space, before passing the cyclists, or, the cyclists need lessons in road craft (which would appear to be your view). However, the reality is, the HGV was being driven on that section of road, and, the cyclists were riding as they were. Given those circumstances, IMHO, the driver of the HGV should have exercised more caution and patience.

We obviously differ. Such is life.


----------



## newfhouse (4 Jun 2022)

newts said:


> Perhaps it's the entitled cyclists that can't /won't accept that the actions of a cyclist in this video clip are questionble?


I don’t think there’s a single post here that defends the cyclists’ road position.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> I don’t think there’s a single post here that defends the cyclists’ road position.



I dunno, there are some that come pretty close.


----------



## newfhouse (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> I dunno, there are some that come pretty close.



On a quick re-read there might be a couple (from one person) that drift closer than they should. The rest have been critical so I think on balance the “entitled cyclists” charge doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> On a quick re-read there might be a couple (from one person) that drift closer than they should. The rest have been critical so I think on balance the “entitled cyclists” charge doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.



Indeed. Equally I hope it's possible to criticise the cyclists' roadcraft without suggesting that they somehow 'deserve' to be put in danger. That's certainly been my intention.


----------



## mjr (4 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> Indeed. Equally I hope it's possible to criticise the cyclists' roadcraft without suggesting that they somehow 'deserve' to be put in danger. That's certainly been my intention.


It certainly seemed like you thought they'd given "implied permission" to motorists to put them in danger.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> It certainly seemed like you thought they'd given "implied permission" to motorists to put them in danger.


Maybe read what I actually wrote.


----------



## Alex321 (4 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> I don't think claiming "implied permission" is a great defence for committing an offence. Also, are there many offences which couldn't be excused by such a claim? Is cycling on the carriageway itself (rather than an adjacent or even faraway indirect cycleway) "implied permission" for motorists to close-pass you?



It is not remotely clear that any offence was actually committed though.

The police cyclist saying "he'll get undue care and attention" really means nothing.

The 1.5m that so many are going on about here is *guidance* it is not the law.

Any court would take into account more than just the space between the vehicles when deciding if it actually is driving without due care & consideration. And the combination of slow speeds and clearly delineated lanes would probably mean the court would decide 1.5m is not *necessary*. Personally, I would be surprised if the truck driver is actually charged, never mind convicted.


----------



## Alex321 (4 Jun 2022)

mjr said:


> It's called cycling two abreast along the carriageway, not "deliberately impeding traffic". Drivers should learn before getting licensed to overtake correctly and that overtaking is not a right.



If it is unnecessarily stopping people from overtaking, then it is definitely impeding traffic, and is also against the Highway code.


----------



## Alex321 (4 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> I find it very alarming, that, in a cycling forum, where, presumably, the majority of contributors are cyclists, there are so many "entitled driver" opinions. I do hope, for all of our safety, they (the holders of said opinions), are not also drivers.



What do you define as an "entitled driver" opinion? I haven't seen one that I would describe that way.


----------



## Alex321 (4 Jun 2022)

newfhouse said:


> I don’t think there’s a single post here that defends the cyclists’ road position.



There are several.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2022)

Alex321 said:


> It is not remotely clear that any offence was actually committed though.
> 
> The police cyclist saying "he'll get undue care and attention" really means nothing.
> 
> ...



It's a straw man anyway. I'm criticising the cyclist, not defending the motorist.


----------



## BoldonLad (5 Jun 2022)

Alex321 said:


> What do you define as an "entitled driver" opinion? I haven't seen one that I would describe that way.



To me, an "entitled driver" is one who, (among other things), being in charge of a vehicle relies on the "I have right or way" as a defence, in relation to vulnerable road users. 

So, you have a different opinion to me, such is life.


----------



## Randomnerd (5 Jun 2022)

Vine will be delighted his ”slebrity” status has sparked such energetic discourse. Worra d**kwad, filming metweebles barking at delivery trucks to promote peace on the streets. Got that wrong Jezza.


----------



## DRM (5 Jun 2022)

Randomnerd said:


> Vine will be delighted his ”slebrity” status has sparked such energetic discourse. Worra d**kwad, filming metweebles barking at delivery trucks to promote peace on the streets. Got that wrong Jezza.



I actually think road peace should have distanced themselves from this shambles, as in my opinion all it’s done is fuel the them and us mentality and made things worse, it basically sums up his radio show that’s broadcasting inflammatory nonsense, whilst talking over and cutting off different points of view, I don’t want, him or those amateurish plod representing me


----------



## winjim (5 Jun 2022)

DRM said:


> I actually think road peace should have distanced themselves from this shambles, as in my opinion all it’s done is fuel the them and us mentality and made things worse, it basically sums up his radio show that’s broadcasting inflammatory nonsense, whilst talking over and cutting off different points of view, I don’t want, him or those amateurish plod representing me



So that's who the riders in purple were? I hadn't heard of them but just looked them up. It's annoying as this really could have been a chance to talk about road safety, all aspects of it as I mentioned upthread, right down to the consumer level. Instead we're arguing about stupid coppers and whether Vine is a twat or not.


----------



## DRM (5 Jun 2022)

winjim said:


> So that's who the riders in purple were? I hadn't heard of them but just looked them up. It's annoying as this really could have been a chance to talk about road safety, all aspects of it as I mentioned upthread, right down to the consumer level. Instead we're arguing about stupid coppers and whether Vine is a twat or not.



Exactly, what was a golden opportunity to do some good has been ruined by this chump and two useless coppers, but hey ho it’s got JV’s name to the forefront and promoted him instead


----------



## Randomnerd (5 Jun 2022)

There’s no arguing about the last point. Even Jezza wakes up and his first thought is “Twat again today? Yes.”
Road Peace must be fuming with their PR person…


----------



## newts (5 Jun 2022)

If they were riding around London village for a couple of hours I'm sure they actually filmed many incidents that would have got their point across better & gained good PR if they'd bothered to check all the footage. Twas an own goal by the sensation seeker JV on this occasion.


----------



## BoldonLad (5 Jun 2022)

Randomnerd said:


> Vine will be delighted his ”slebrity” status has sparked such energetic discourse. Worra d**kwad, filming metweebles barking at delivery trucks to promote peace on the streets. Got that wrong Jezza.





DRM said:


> I actually think road peace should have distanced themselves from this shambles, as in my opinion all it’s done is fuel the them and us mentality and made things worse, it basically sums up his radio show that’s broadcasting inflammatory nonsense, whilst talking over and cutting off different points of view, I don’t want, him or those amateurish plod representing me





DRM said:


> Exactly, what was a golden opportunity to do some good has been ruined by this chump and two useless coppers, but hey ho it’s got JV’s name to the forefront and promoted him instead





Randomnerd said:


> There’s no arguing about the last point. Even Jezza wakes up and his first thought is “Twat again today? Yes.”
> Road Peace must be fuming with their PR person…



We agree on that lot, at least, I did say in post 98 (I think it was), the video should not have been posted to Twitter, or, another Social Media.


----------



## C R (5 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> ... the video should not have been posted to Twitter, or, another Social Media.


Indeed, this video has done no good at all.


----------



## Alex321 (5 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> To me, an "entitled driver" is one who, (among other things), being in charge of a vehicle relies on the "I have right or way" as a defence, in relation to vulnerable road users.
> 
> So, you have a different opinion to me, such is life.



I haven't seen anybody posting here suggesting that. Could you point to any such posts?


----------



## simongt (6 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> the video should not have been posted to Twitter, or, another Social Media.


Maybe that's the issue with 'modern' communications systems. Pretty much anyone with a decent amount of IT knowledge can access the various 'streams' and leak them to the world for their own amusment or potential social damage depending on their attitude to the subject matter.


----------



## BoldonLad (6 Jun 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I haven't seen anybody posting here suggesting that. Could you point to any such posts?



Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.



How could you tell from the camera view that was not exactly what the driver was doing?


----------



## classic33 (6 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.


You may go, but only if it is safe to do so, from memory. 
Traffic lights are not "Stop, On Your Marks, Go. And should not be treated as such.

Anyone know what was on the far side(drivers) side of the lorry at that point?


----------



## BoldonLad (6 Jun 2022)

Phaeton said:


> How could you tell from the camera view that was not exactly what the driver was doing?



Unless you, or anyone else posting on here, including me, was there, then, none of us know anymore than we have seen in the video. Personally, I would have not been happy with that HGV being that close to me (either cycling or walking). The driver may have THOUGHT he/she was showing caution, IMHO, he/she was not. That does not men I wish to see him/her sacked, hung-drawn-and-quartered, or, whatever, but, to me, it is unacceptable behaviour when in charge of a motor vehicle, particularly an HGV. I agree the behaviour of the cyclists is questionable, but, that is not the point.


----------



## Alex321 (6 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.



I'm not sure quite what you are saying here. In general, with urban roads with multiple lanes, traffic on one lane does have the right to progress, subject to things like traffic lights and other traffic *in their lane*. They don't have any right to switch lanes without making sure they have a safe gap in the other lane to move into.

It isn't a case of them having "right of way" over traffic in other lanes, they are considered to be in a separate place, and not actually interacting with each other for "right of way" to be a factor.


----------



## Alex321 (6 Jun 2022)

classic33 said:


> You may go, but only if it is safe to do so, from memory.
> Traffic lights are not "Stop, On Your Marks, Go. And should not be treated as such.
> 
> Anyone know what was on the far side(drivers) side of the lorry at that point?



Another two lanes of traffic going the other way. And he was just as tight to the "outside" lane markings as he was to the nearside ones.


----------



## BoldonLad (6 Jun 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I'm not sure quite what you are saying here. In general, with urban roads with multiple lanes, traffic on one lane does have the right to progress, subject to things like traffic lights and other traffic *in their lane*.* They don't have any right to switch lanes without making sure they have a safe gap in the other lane to move into.*
> 
> It isn't a case of them having "right of way" over traffic in other lanes, they are considered to be in a separate place, and not actually interacting with each other for "right of way" to be a factor.



I am saying, he/she does not have "right of way", or, indeed' any "right" to risk a close pass or potentially worse with a cyclist, even if that cyclist is in the other lane, and, is behaving less than perfectly. I agree they do not have the "right" to switch lanes unless it is safe to do so, but, they do have the right to slow down or even stop!

I have had enough of this now. Off for a cycle ride, and, to worry that some of the drivers who I may encounter believe they have "right of way", regardless.


----------



## Alex321 (6 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> I am saying, he/she does not have "right of way", or, indeed' any "right" to risk a close pass or potentially worse with a cyclist, even if that cyclist is in the other lane, and, is behaving less than perfectly. I agree they do not have the "right" to switch lanes unless it is safe to do so, but, they do have the right to slow down or even stop!
> 
> I have had enough of this now. Off for a cycle ride, and, to worry that some of the drivers who I may encounter believe they have "right of way".



Ok. You are using "right of way" to mean something a bit different to what I understand by the term. I have always understood it to be about when two people want to occupy the same space, who has the right to do so.

*Personally*, with separate lanes and at those speeds (remember it is a 20 limit, and traffic didn't look to be going even that fast), as a reasonably competent cyclist, I wouldn't be to worried by an HGV passing that close (I wouldn't have been as wide in the lane as that policeman was anyhow, but that isn't the point).


----------



## ClichéGuevara (6 Jun 2022)

Given the oncoming and park vehicles outside of the LGV, it's an interesting contrast to the other video of the cyclists on the country road, where people were criticising the driver of a car that clipped a white line, potentially to avoid a pot hole and now people are saying the LGV should have done precisely that.


----------



## DaveReading (6 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.


I don't recall any posts, prior to yours, about confusion over the meaning of a green light. What is the relevance ?


----------



## BoldonLad (6 Jun 2022)

DaveReading said:


> I don't recall any posts, prior to yours, about confusion over the meaning of a green light. What is the relevance ?



No relevance whatsoever, beyond what said, ie, there is no “right to go”, regardless.


----------



## DCBassman (6 Jun 2022)

Alex321 said:


> "right of way"


No-one has this. You have priority, or not. They are not the same thing.
Right of way, AIUI, means, for example, " you have the right to use this road/track/pathway/whatever.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Jun 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Unless you, or anyone else posting on here, including me, was there, then, none of us know anymore than we have seen in the video. Personally, I would have not been happy with that HGV being that close to me (either cycling or walking). The driver may have *THOUGHT he/she was showing caution*, *IMHO, he/she was not.* That does not men I wish to see him/her sacked, hung-drawn-and-quartered, or, whatever, but, to me, it is unacceptable behaviour when in charge of a motor vehicle, particularly an HGV. I agree the behaviour of the cyclists is questionable, but, that is not the point.


IMHO there was no THOUGHT about it, he/she/they were showing caution.


----------



## DCBassman (6 Jun 2022)

Really, why is this thread 16 pages long? Why?


----------



## Alex321 (6 Jun 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Given the oncoming and park vehicles outside of the LGV, it's an interesting contrast to the other video of the cyclists on the country road, where people were criticising the driver of a car that clipped a white line, potentially to avoid a pot hole and now people are saying the LGV should have done precisely that.



He didn't just "clip" the white line, he crossed it. And he was traveling MUCH faster than the LGV, in the opposite direction to the cyclists - and the LGV did not clip the white line either, though he did get very close to it.

Very different situation IMO.


----------



## T4tomo (7 Jun 2022)

DCBassman said:


> Really, why is this thread 16 pages long? Why?



Because someone is wrong on the internet and they must be corrected!


----------



## C R (7 Jun 2022)




----------



## newts (7 Jun 2022)

JV's latest video?


View: https://youtu.be/d-zJK3HnM_s


----------



## presta (7 Jun 2022)

C R said:


> Indeed, this video has done no good at all.



Vine blocked me for pointing out that he keeps shooting himself (and cyclists generally) in the foot with some of his videos.

One such case was a video making a perfectly valid point about an MGIF van pushing past when there wasn't room, but then the end of the footage showed Vine passing a No Entry sign, and riding the wrong way up a one way street. The motorists had a field day with that one.


----------



## icowden (7 Jun 2022)

presta said:


> One such case was a video making a perfectly valid point about an MGIF van pushing past when there wasn't room, but then the end of the footage showed Vine passing a No Entry sign, and riding the wrong way up a one way street. The motorists had a field day with that one.


I haven't seen the video, but is it possible that the street is actually one of the many one way streets in London that has a badly marked cycle lane (usually under parked cars) going against the traffic?


----------



## wiggydiggy (8 Jun 2022)

newts said:


> JV's latest video?
> 
> 
> View: https://youtu.be/d-zJK3HnM_s




He followed it up with this:


----------



## mjr (21 Jun 2022)

More from Detective Superintendent Andy Cox on Streets Ahead 
View: https://shows.acast.com/streets-ahead/episodes/detective-superintendent-andy-cox


----------



## keithmac (22 Jun 2022)

Shouldn't have been two abreast given how bad their cycling/ balance was imho.

They has an entire lane to themselves yet nearly ended up in the next one.

Doesn't do cyclists any favours and I hope the Lorry Driver doesn't come worse off for it.


----------

