# Blue Mini HS03 FXF



## BSRU (7 Apr 2011)

To the driver of a blue mini cooper, HS03 FXF, you deserve a good kick in.

Not for gesticulating at me for daring to take primary to stop you from overtaking me at a pinch point but for the completely stupid dangerous left hook of another cyclist who happened to have her child with her, in a child seat.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Apr 2011)

Video coming mate?


----------



## BSRU (7 Apr 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Video coming mate?



Of course, all recorded in glorious 1080p HD.

Not until this evening though as unfortunately my work pc cannot cope with editing HD content, in fact it has problem playing HD video's.


----------



## Pisquee (7 Apr 2011)

This kind of answers one of my questions. We have a baby due in 6 months. Both me and my wife love cycling. I am concerned about my own and her safety as it is with some of the stoopid drivers we encounter, and was wondering if stuoopid drivers become less stoopid when they see a baby/child on a back seat.


----------



## benb (7 Apr 2011)

In my experience drivers will give you more room with a child seat on the bike.


----------



## BSRU (7 Apr 2011)

Pisquee said:


> This kind of answers one of my questions. We have a baby due in 6 months. Both me and my wife love cycling. I am concerned about my own and her safety as it is with some of the stoopid drivers we encounter, and was wondering if stuoopid drivers become less stoopid when they see a baby/child on a back seat.



In Swindon some drivers seem to lack experience/common sense of how to handle bicycles using the road. Most cyclists I see use the shared paths or non-shared paths, until recently I saw very few on the road. Since the beginning of the year I see lots more cyclists and far more using the roads.

Do not see many bikes with child seats but do see a few with child trailers which are large and more visible.


----------



## Jezston (7 Apr 2011)

Pisquee said:


> This kind of answers one of my questions. We have a baby due in 6 months. Both me and my wife love cycling. I am concerned about my own and her safety as it is with some of the stoopid drivers we encounter, and was wondering if stuoopid drivers become less stoopid when they see a baby/child on a back seat.



It may seem scary, but scientifically your child will be safer on a baby seat on the move than in the home.


----------



## benb (7 Apr 2011)

Jezston said:


> It may seem scary, but scientifically your child will be safer on a baby seat on the move than in the home.



Unless they wear a thudguard.


----------



## cyberknight (7 Apr 2011)

benb said:


> Unless they wear a thudguard.



My kid could do with one of them , he is a stunt man in training .....


----------



## BSRU (7 Apr 2011)

The video of the Mini Cooper.

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DGoLE_QxCg[/media]


----------



## ianrauk (7 Apr 2011)

What an effing despicable c**t. If I had seen that and caught up with the driver I would have pulled him out of the car and given him a bloody nose.
The driver had all the time and room in the world. Absolutely no need to have acted like that.


----------



## fossyant (7 Apr 2011)

Crikey - Have you reported that one. That left hooker is double shocking considering there is a child on there !


----------



## chigman (7 Apr 2011)

BSRU said:


> To the driver of a blue mini cooper, HS03 FXF, you deserve a good kick in.




Your right mate, he needs a bloody good kicking for that. Way, and bang out of order. Report it.

Steve


----------



## DrSquirrel (7 Apr 2011)

+1 Report please.


----------



## stowie (7 Apr 2011)

Terrible.

T*rds like this are the reason why I don't use a child-seat on my bicycle. And my life is a little bit worse for it - my child would love to ride on the bicycle and it would make my life a little easier.

You have to report this.


----------



## BSRU (7 Apr 2011)

Believe it or not but I think it was a female driver, I noticed on the video the cyclist was very surprised and worried by the mini.

I will be calling the Police tomorrow to discus the incident with them.


----------



## clarion (7 Apr 2011)

What a twat.


----------



## Tynan (7 Apr 2011)

mini syndrome

although I didn't think the turn was toooo bad


----------



## gannet (7 Apr 2011)

Tynan said:


> mini syndrome
> 
> although I didn't think the turn was toooo bad



+1 I have certainly seen worse


----------



## 400bhp (7 Apr 2011)

+2


----------



## Holdsworth (8 Apr 2011)

That has to be going straight to the plod!!!


----------



## gb155 (8 Apr 2011)

bloody hell


----------



## jefmcg (8 Apr 2011)

Nasty.

But please, stop saying "****" and "twat" like these are the worse things in the world that someone could be. The deep underlying misogyny in this usage is disheartening.

And why is it surprising she's a woman? Woman do not have diffuse maternal instincts towards strangers' children, any more than men do. 

</rant>

joan


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (8 Apr 2011)

Appauling - absolutely appauling! 

I can't believe somebody said the turn "wasn't too bad" 

I thought it was terrible. I used to have a seat like that for my daughter and I remember it making the ride a little unstable - especially when the little one wiggles around unpredictably! 

Mini driver was a total idiot - what was the point in any of it I ask myself and can't find an answer!


----------



## BentMikey (8 Apr 2011)

the reluctant cyclist said:


> Appauling - absolutely appauling!
> 
> *I can't believe somebody said the turn "wasn't too bad" *
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## DrSquirrel (8 Apr 2011)

+2 

Yes, there are worse turns - like ones that kill people, but it doesn't make it any less bad!


----------



## GrasB (8 Apr 2011)

I don't think people realise how bad turns like that are, all it takes is a half meter miss judgement or the rider not responding to the car & it's not a close pass anymore it's a potentially fatal incident.


----------



## Jezston (8 Apr 2011)

This driver needs the book thrown at them. Putting the lives of a mother and child in danger to save themselves a couple of seconds - this kind of behaviour can NOT be considered acceptable.


----------



## jugglingphil (8 Apr 2011)

Disgraceful driving, with no other traffic around there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this selfish and dangerous behavior.

Having watched the video back, if mother&child were not so close to kerb would they a) be squished b) made it harder for the mini to make the manoeuver?

+1 for reporting to Police


----------



## BSRU (8 Apr 2011)

It's with the local traffic Police now, they seemed quite shocked when I described the incident, hopefully they will feel the same once they have watched the video. Told them it was on YouTube and they just needed to search using the registration number to find it.


----------



## chigman (8 Apr 2011)

BSRU said:


> It's with the local traffic Police now, they seemed quite shocked when I described the incident, hopefully they will feel the same once they have watched the video. Told them it was on YouTube and they just needed to search using the registration number to find it.




Well done and thank you. Thats the right move, deffo.

Steve


----------



## Tynan (8 Apr 2011)

someone measure the distance between the car and the bike at it's narrowest point, and how fast was the bike going

yes it's aggressive and bad driving but the bike is only just entering a wide turning as the car turns left, again, not good, not nice but not as bad as some on here seem to be trying to make it

I see that on a weekly basis, if I don't touch the brakes I don't consider it more than poor 

imho


----------



## benb (8 Apr 2011)

Tynan said:


> someone measure the distance between the car and the bike at it's narrowest point, and how fast was the bike going
> 
> yes it's aggressive and bad driving but the bike is only just entering a wide turning as the car turns left, again, not good, not nice but not as bad as some on here seem to be trying to make it
> 
> ...



Try saying that when you have a child on the back.


----------



## Moby Jones (8 Apr 2011)

Can you keep us up to date of what happens with the plod, be interesting to know what they do if anything


----------



## MLC (8 Apr 2011)

I can only go by the comments on here as I am unable to view video in work but judging from the comments a near left hook is disgusting and with a child on the back makes it even worse. Let us hope that the police can do something about it.

All said and done if nothing happens to this person i.e. get kicked or nicked or otherwise at least you can content yourself that they still have to put up with the humiliation that they have paid top dollar for and are driving around in a .......mini.


----------



## BSRU (8 Apr 2011)

MLC said:


> I can only go by the comments on here as I am unable to view video in work but judging from the comments a near left hook is disgusting and with a child on the back makes it even worse. Let us hope that the police can do something about it.
> 
> All said and done if nothing happens to this person i.e. get kicked or nicked or otherwise at least you can content yourself that they still have to put up with the humiliation that they have paid top dollar for and are driving around in a .......mini.



I have quite a few subscribers to my YouTube channel who live in Swindon so maybe the driver will find out their bad driving is on the internet.


----------



## subaqua (8 Apr 2011)

benb said:


> Try saying that when you have a child on the back.




been there done that got the tshirts. if drivers gave me that much room i would have been happy. 

its not brilliant driving but its nowhere near as bad as i imagined it was going to be from the original post


----------



## BSRU (8 Apr 2011)

I cannot say whether they braked or not, probably didn't as that were not going that fast, they did ease off slightly and take a nervous look over their right shoulder to see if anyone else was going to attempt the same manoeuvre.
I think you are applying hardened commuter values to this situation. If they had done the same to me I would have just thought "self-gratification artist" and not even considered posting it on here or reporting it. But the thing that makes it stand out is the fact someone is willing to put a child in danger just to save a few seconds.


----------



## downfader (8 Apr 2011)

Come on.. I dont think thats acceptable driving for several reasons (even excluding the kiddie factor)...

For one the highway code does say that you shouldnt overtake near or through junctions. The driver has barely completed one manouvre before attempting abother - the turning. Secondly the driver does leave it a bit late. Thirdly they're not fully concentrating on the road ahead due to the waving. Fourthly, the road was very clear from the video shown, what was wrong with waiting a couple of seconds and pulling in behind the lady and child? 

Again I think theres a small element of desensitisation represented by comments here.


----------



## BSRU (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359648"]
No I'm not. Standard definition of a left hook is someone overtaking you and then turning left thus forcing you to brake or otherwise there is a real danger that you will go into the side of the vehicle.

I don't see how that has happened here.
[/quote]

I would call it a left hook whenever someone cuts across your path without leaving a reasonable safety margin, having to brake just makes it a more serious left hook.

I have had many left hooks where I haven't needed to brake, I seen the indicator on as they're passing and just free-wheeled as I know what's going to happen.


----------



## Tynan (8 Apr 2011)

never perfom a maouvre that causes another road user to brake or change direction

that's the gold standard I think and like it or not the mini driver doesn't cause that

again, shitty driving but no more than that, not dangerous, quite

the kiddy seat just means the bike is likely to be going slower, nothing more, no emotional please


----------



## BSRU (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359652"]
Which is the braking distance on a bike travelling at x speed. Thank you for agreeing to my earlier post about this not being a left hook.
[/quote]

As a guestimate she was travelling at 10mph, so the braking distance for a car, with superior mechanical grip and four powerful brakes is about 5 metres, the mini did not leave a 5 metre gap when turning in.


----------



## BSRU (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359656"]
<Shakes head> Please don't try and compare the braking dynamics of a car and a bike. Given that one is much heavier then the other.
[/quote]

Are you stating a bicycle can out brake a car?<Shakes head>


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359651"]
1. That's open to intepretation. If a junction is open (as in the vid) and I don't see no traffic going into or out of that junction does that mean I must not overtake becuase the HC says so? Of course not.
[/quote]

Yes it does!

The problem is that all too many drivers (and apparently cyclists) think the Highway Code does not apply to them and gives them Cart Blanche to drive as they like.

The point being missed (again) is that the only way roads can be safe is if drivers drive appropriately and obey the rules.

Without that basis there is absolutely no safety at all.


*



<h4>166

Click to expand...

*


> *DO NOT* overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching
> 
> 
> a corner or bend





> *167*
> *DO NOT* overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
> 
> 
> stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left



The driver is totally wrong, and in driving this way endangers other road users.... and would have failed a drivingtest for a stupid and reckless stunt like this

His driving unequivocally "fails to exercise the "standard of driving that could be expected of a reasonable and competent driver"

He needs to have his license removed - simples


----------



## BSRU (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359659"]
All I know that on a low racer bent with BB7's front and back I can come to a controlled stop within roughly 17 (8 1/2 turns on a 26'' wheel) metres. If that means that I can outbreak a car then yes that is what I am saying.
[/quote]

But it wasn't you on a low racer bent with BB7's front and back plus you seem to have forgotten thinking time.

I'll make the question clearer, are you stating a cheap upright with cheap rim brakes and the extra weight of a child seat and a child can out brake a car?

Any cyclist who thinks they can out brake a car is howling at the moon.


----------



## JamesAC (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359660"]
If you are going to cut n paste hugh swaths of the HC, please make sure it is relevant (again). 

Rule 166, I don't know why you have posted this rule. You can see from the vid that the junction is open and the road is straight.

Rule 167 'might' being the key word here. The driver did not come into conflict with the cyclist because the cyclist did not have to change speed or direction. Unless you can give me your own defintion of confict - just make sure it is relevant please.

Ta mulchy.
[/quote]


I think the relevant definition is that of "might", not "conflict". The HC code says that it is not necessary that conflict *wil*l happen, rather that there is a *possibility* of conflict.


----------



## BSRU (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359662"]
Eh? Don't go changing the parameters now to your original question. Remember you asked me, and I gave an answer based on my own (and quite frankly glorious experience) of riding a low racer at speed and coming to a controlled stop. 

As for the question that you are asking now - at what speed is the woman going? I need to know the speed before I can give an answer.





[/quote]

I realised that you stated braking distance of 17 metres but you do not mention the speed, if it is not 10mph, as already mentioned, then it is a pointless comparison.
Also a cars braking distance at 30mph is 14 metres still 3 metres earlier than you if your information relates to 30mph, still leaving out the thinking distance which is another 9 metres at 30mph.

No one's changed parameters but someone has forgotten that the bike is in the video and can quite easily be seen it is not a low racer bent with BB7's front and back.

A 5 metre safety margin is a minimum for a car and the mini gave 2 metres at best.


----------



## Mr Celine (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359651"]
4. Nothing at all. Except 'not making progress' is markable on a driving test.


[/quote]

I watched the video several times but can't see the L plates. Or an examiner. 

Never mind, I'm sure the driver would have failed for not indicating when overtaking BSRU.

My examiner was a cyclist and it was known that he would fail anyone who gave a cyclist less than 6 feet when overtaking. And that was when going straight on.


----------



## snorri (8 Apr 2011)

Rule 130, diagonal stripes bordered by a broken line you should not enter the area unless necessary.


----------



## TheDoctor (8 Apr 2011)

Or a waiting-for-ten-seconds video...


----------



## snorri (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359670"]
It was either that or we'd be looking at a close pass video as well.
[/quote]
There was no need to pass.


----------



## stowie (8 Apr 2011)

A careful and considerate driver would have overtaken the first cyclist and waited behind the second with the child to make sure there wasn't conflict. The turn was close enough for the car to be turning across the cyclist's path, fortunately they were cycling slowly.

If the driver had been waving arms around for slowing them down for 10s at the pinch point, do we think that she timed the overtake and turn-in with racing-driver precision, or it was just down to luck that her timing didn't create an accident?

I would wager that the physics of the situation wasn't examined in great detail by her whilst she overtook both cyclists. Is it possibly more likely that she got aggrieved at waiting for a second for the first cyclist and was so busy with indignation that she didn't see / didn't care about the second?


----------



## BSRU (8 Apr 2011)

No it was 2 metres at best.

The quoted distance for a car is based on an average saloon, your experience would be more akin to a high performance sports car which would obviously brake alot quicker than an average saloon.

Since the thinking time for a car or a bicycle is the same, 9 metres you are implying that you can brake from 30mph in just 8 metres, at 30mph you are travelling at over 13.4 metres per second, so you some how can go from 30 mph to a stop in 0.6 seconds, someone's barking and howling at the moon now.

I'll leave this particular discussion now as there is no arguing with fantasy figures like that.


----------



## Mr Celine (9 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359668"]
There is no one behind the Mini and BRSU is more concerned with what is front of him then behind therefore there is no need to give a signal. 
[/quote]

And how does the mini driver know that? Were they watching BSRU's video? Is it likely that someone with such poor observational skills could effectively use their mirrors? What was the point of signalling the left turn?


----------



## snorri (9 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359673"]
Be pragmatic. You seriously suggesting that the car should wait behind BRSU becuase they are not allowed to go into the Chevrons to perform a safe overtake?
[/quote]
Absolutely.
The driver knows they are close to a junction where they will turn left, but decides it is "necessary" to overtake two cyclists some distance apart, before executing the turn.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Apr 2011)

It wasn't ideal, but I wouldn't call that a left hook. Maybe I have become brutalised by London. The cyclist didn't have to alter direction and had no need to brake. Weaving in front of the bike might have seemed alarming however. Inconsiderate and stupid rather than out-and-out dangerous, perhaps?


----------



## stowie (9 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359673"]
Be pragmatic. You seriously suggesting that the car should wait behind BRSU becuase they are not allowed to go into the Chevrons to perform a safe overtake?
[/quote]

Maybe they should have waited behind BRSU because it would cost them a couple of seconds but save having to execute a potentially dangerous overtake and turn.

What is wrong with the mindset that says "I am turning in a short while, not a lot of point overtaking the cyclists as it won't buy me more than a couple of seconds which is not worth the risk".

Nothing in this video gave me a feeling that the driver had any idea how to act around cyclists.


----------



## mickle (9 Apr 2011)

'MINI's are made by BMW. Say no more.


----------



## Night Train (9 Apr 2011)

As a driver, here is my take on the video and what it appears to show me.

The Mini should not have over taken the OP at that point. The op was at a junction with a minor road and there were hatchings warning of a hazard, the approaching right turn lane.

Although the overtake would have been legal and on its own would not have been an issue it was unnecessary as the Mini was going to turn left immediately after the over take.

However, given the overtake of the OP the Mini was accelerating to overtake at a point where it should have been slowing for the junction.

The Mini was then too fast for the junction and was left undecided as to whether to emergency brake and turn after the parent cyclist had passed the junction or to accellerate and over take again before turning left.
The hesitation caused the proximity of the parent cyclist to have moved too close to the junction for either option to have been appropriate. The Mini should then have either stopped to let the parent cyclist clear the junction first or carry on ahead and miss the turn.


The Mini was at fault for initiating an over take that was unnecessary and also not making good observation of the road ahead to spot and allow for the parent cyclist who would have been visible. The actions of the Mini put the parent cyclist at risk due to a 'left hook' and overtaking at a junction.

It could also be considered a close pass as if there had been traffic looking to emerge from the junction the parent cyclist may have been looking to take primary position which would have lead to a collision with the overtaking Mini.

Were I to be driving the Mini, based on what I can see in the video, I would have been slowing early for both the hazard markings and the left turn and waited behind the OP and turned left without an overtake as it would have been the safest course of action.


----------



## Lurker (9 Apr 2011)

Night Train said:


> As a driver, here is my take on the video and what it appears to show me.
> 
> The Mini should not have over taken the OP at that point. The op was at a junction with a minor road and there were hatchings warning of a hazard, the approaching right turn lane.
> 
> ...



+1

This driver should learn to read the road, slow down a bit, and not react to imagined slight by waving her arm in the air. 'Careful and competent driver'? I think not.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2011)

Well said, Night Train. Good analysis, thank you.


----------



## BSRU (9 Apr 2011)

Night Train said:


> As a driver, here is my take on the video and what it appears to show me.
> 
> The Mini should not have over taken the OP at that point. The op was at a junction with a minor road and there were hatchings warning of a hazard, the approaching right turn lane.
> 
> ...



+1

Also if the mini had been driving within the designated speed limit for that road there would have been no interaction with the parent cyclist.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359660"]
If you are going to cut n paste hugh swaths of the HC, please make sure it is relevant (again). 

Rule 166, I don't know why you have posted this rule. You can see from the vid that the junction is open and the road is straight.

Rule 167 'might' being the key word here. The driver did not come into conflict with the cyclist because the cyclist did not have to change speed or direction. Unless you can give me your own defintion of confict - just make sure it is relevant please.

Ta mulchy.
[/quote]

Rule 166 clearly states that the maneouvre should not have been carried out. The fact is was shows a stupid, incompetent and impatient driver.

Surely not difficult?


----------



## BSRU (9 Apr 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Rule 166 clearly states that the maneouvre should not have been carried out. The fact is was shows a stupid, incompetent and impatient driver.
> 
> Surely not difficult?



Unfortunately and stupidly as it sounds, if the Highway Code states "should not" then it is not actually illegal to do it, it only has any bearing in apportioning blame after a collision.


----------



## yello (9 Apr 2011)

slowmotion said:


> It wasn't ideal, but I wouldn't call that a left hook. Maybe I have become brutalised by London.



That was my take on it too.

Tbh, I was expecting to be outraged from the comments I read before viewing the video. I wasn't. In fact, I thought the driver gave the OP plenty of space on the overtake! Nice and safe from that perspective... though not the cleverest of places TO overtake truth told.

The left hook; I personally thought it arguably as much an overtake as a left hook. The road seems to bend to the left before the junction and I think that the car is past the cyclist before entering the junction... though it is close. The space the car gives the cyclist maybe exaggerates the left turn. 

My initial concern from my single viewing of the video was the driver's speed. I don't know what the speed limit is along there but the driver seems to be nipping along a bit... perhaps too fast for the conditions even if within the limit. I personally would have thought that 2 cyclists and 2 junctions would have given the driver cause to back off.

I'd be interested to see what the police think.


----------



## DrSquirrel (9 Apr 2011)

All these arguments for this incident, saying its not a problem needs to consider this...


If you did this on a test - would you fail? Yes, straight away.


Would probably fail for all the flapping about before the junction incident anyway.


----------



## Paul_L (9 Apr 2011)

two quick points having read all the posts and seen the video a couple of times;

1 - Yes there are worse left hooks but anyone prepared to do what this idiot did will also do worse.

2 - If the driver hadn't have been so occupied with abusing the OP, he might have been paying attention to the 2nd cyclist.

At best, driving without due care and attention, at worst dangerous driving.

Any update from plod?


----------



## Rebel Ian (9 Apr 2011)

It's quite amusing reading posters getting into "official" definitions of a left hook, relative braking distances or bike versus car and hurling sections of the HC back and forth at each other.

I just looked at the video and thought that's not an overtaking manouevre I'd have gone for past either of the two cyclists. And I drive a BMW!


----------



## downfader (9 Apr 2011)

snorri said:


> Rule 130, diagonal stripes bordered by a broken line you should not enter the area unless necessary.



I dont think theres any conflict with 130 on this one within the bounds of overtaking the first cyclist (BSRU) had the driver been driving further down the road and there had not been another cyclist present. IMO 130 being used could be a bit of a grey area as there are stronger rules broken as Cunobelin pointed out, rules that are more important to the situation presented.



BSRU said:


> Unfortunately and stupidly as it sounds, if the Highway Code states "should not" then it is not actually illegal to do it, it only has any bearing in apportioning blame after a collision.




The highway code isnt all law, as we all know. However the rules can and have been used to demonstrate poor driving. The Police and courts have used said rules to show how behaviour and personality can cause problems, as have road safety groups. Its a set of guides for best practice to avoid conflict and trouble and even injury.


----------



## Mr Celine (9 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359682"]


Because they are signalling their intention to the lady on the bike.
[/quote]

The driver was not signalling an intention because the lady on the bike could not see the signal until after the maneouvre had started.


----------



## yello (9 Apr 2011)

DrSquirrel said:


> If you did this on a test - would you fail? Yes, straight away.



You're posing and answering your own question there but, not being a driving instructor/test examiner, I personally wouldn't know. However I suspect it would be source for comment in any event!


----------



## yello (9 Apr 2011)

reiver said:


> Any examiner worth his salt would say "stop the car and give me the keys"



Worth _your_ salt! If you're a driver instructor or examiner then I'll happily accept your qualified opinion! As I said, personally I have no idea but it'd certainly be a discussion point (as it is here!).


----------



## DrSquirrel (9 Apr 2011)

yello said:


> Worth _your_ salt! If you're a driver instructor or examiner then I'll happily accept your qualified opinion! As I said, personally I have no idea but it'd certainly be a discussion point (as it is here!).



It's fair to say that common sense prevails here, we don't need experts to tell us this would fail you - although if you're willing to try it on a test then go ahead.


----------



## yello (9 Apr 2011)

DrSquirrel said:


> It's fair to say that common sense prevails here, we don't need experts to tell us this would fail you - although if you're willing to try it on a test then go ahead.



Common sense is not that common at all - as that driver illustrates! If an examiner/instructor wants to give us their professional opinion then I for one will more than happily accept that. Until then it remains conjecture.

I wouldn't drive like that, test or no, but that's not the issue here.


----------



## DrSquirrel (9 Apr 2011)

You wouldn't drive your test like that? Because you might fail?


Grasp them straws... tightly...


----------



## yello (9 Apr 2011)

Now don't go making more assumptions  

No, I wouldn't drive like that because I wouldn't consider it safe to do so. Note, *I* wouldn't consider it safe. What an examiner might think, or whether it's a pass/fail issue, I simply wouldn't know.

Dare you admit that you don't actually know?


----------



## Manonabike (9 Apr 2011)

gannet said:


> +1 I have certainly seen worse




+1

After reading the first post I thought it was going to be a shocking video but I've seen far worse.

Don't have a go at me but I think it was an exaggerated first post IMHO


----------



## BSRU (9 Apr 2011)

Manonabike said:


> +1
> 
> After reading the first post I thought it was going to be a shocking video but I've seen far worse.
> 
> Don't have a go at me but I think it was an exaggerated first post IMHO



If we all had the same opinion it would be a very boring forum.


----------



## Norm (9 Apr 2011)

snorri said:


> Rule 130, diagonal stripes bordered by a broken line you should not enter the area unless necessary.


Now I've always interpreted that differently to the way others here appear to be using it.

The phrase "unless necessary" doesn't mean, in my head, that there should be any consideration about whether an overtake was necessary but whether, given that an overtake is going to happen, it is necessary to enter a hatched area.

This comes from the thinking that no overtake is ever necessary because there is never, ever, a necessity to get past the vehicle in front. 

With that interpretation, a driver entering a hatched area with broken lines is actually being considerate to cyclists because, if the overtake is a given, then a driver who considers it necessary to enter the protected area to carry out the overtake is giving us as much room as possible.


----------



## MacB (9 Apr 2011)

slowmotion said:


> It wasn't ideal, but I wouldn't call that a left hook. Maybe I have become brutalised by London. The cyclist didn't have to alter direction and had no need to brake. Weaving in front of the bike might have seemed alarming however. Inconsiderate and stupid rather than out-and-out dangerous, perhaps?



Pretty much my take on it, I wouldn't even have raised an eyebrow at that one. I watched the video and just didn't see anyone put at risk, it may not be the way I'd have driven but it didn't strike me as dangerous.


----------



## downfader (9 Apr 2011)

Come on guys, it is unacceptable. Braking or no braking, thats not the point, the car was driven into the path of the cyclist


----------



## MacB (9 Apr 2011)

downfader said:


> Come on guys, it is unacceptable. Braking or no braking, thats not the point, the car was driven into the path of the cyclist



Nope, just watched it again and still can't see the fuss, I thought the driver gave plenty of room and no-one was put at any risk.


----------



## Jezston (9 Apr 2011)

Come on guys, the driver turns left when they are less than 3 meters in front of the cyclist carrying child. There is NO WAY the driver could have made that move fully knowing that it could be totally safe. The outcome was ok in the end, nothing bad happened, but all the same the driver took the life of a mother and child into their hands for the sake of their convenience, and that is absolutely disgraceful.


----------



## Bicycle (9 Apr 2011)

Well... It's not great but one sees worse every day.

I'm not sure what the great sin is here. 

MINI driver is selfish, inattentive and not very considerate.

The cyclist seems unaware there is a car there; she doesn't look round until the car is level or past her.

She appears not to stop pedalling (or even slow perceptably) when the MINI sweeps across her bow.

Approaching a roundabout, one might expect a cyclist who hears a car approaching from behind to take a peek over the right shoulder.

I think the MINI driver would benefit from a talking-to by the boys in blue, but at the end of the day no-one was hurt, the cyclist appears unmoved and everyone got home happy.

There are bigger issues on the road...


----------



## Manonabike (9 Apr 2011)

BSRU said:


> If we all had the same opinion it would be a very boring forum.



Ahhhh so that what it was then - 10 out 10 for drawing attention


----------



## Banjo (9 Apr 2011)

Mini driver is a dangerous pratt but I dont see how the child seat alters anything. Surely were not saying bikes with just adults require less room than those with a baby on the back?


----------



## BSRU (9 Apr 2011)

Moby Jones said:


> Can you keep us up to date of what happens with the plod, be interesting to know what they do if anything



Don't expect anything too soon, I called the non-emergency Police number and spoke to a Police officer about the incident. Their take on it was it didn't sound too good from my description but the best thing to do would be let the traffic Police have a look at the video and then they would decide if it is worth spending any Police time on.

Since it is a "minor" offence and no collision occurred I will probably not hear anything for five to six weeks.
I would hope at least they have an unofficial chat with the driver, but they could have the same opinion as other people on this thread and deem to take no further action.

The whole point of reporting it to the Police is to let them decide, just because I feel it was unacceptable driving it does not mean the Police will come to the same conclusion.
As I wrote earlier, if they had done the same thing to me I would not have reported it.


----------



## BSRU (9 Apr 2011)

Banjo said:


> Mini driver is a dangerous pratt but I dont see how the child seat alters anything. Surely were not saying bikes with just adults require less room than those with a baby on the back?



I think the child alters it because people in general are more sensitive to things that happen to children.


----------



## Jezston (10 Apr 2011)

BSRU said:


> Don't expect anything too soon, I called the non-emergency Police number and spoke to a Police officer about the incident. Their take on it was it didn't sound too good from my description but the best thing to do would be let the traffic Police have a look at the video and then they would decide if it is worth spending any Police time on.
> 
> Since it is a "minor" offence and no collision occurred I will probably not hear anything for five to six weeks.
> I would hope at least they have an unofficial chat with the driver, but they could have the same opinion as other people on this thread and deem to take no further action.
> ...




Don't feel dispondent. I had an incident with a terrible taxi driver I felt was severe enough to warrant a call to the police. Resulted in him getting a visit. I'd imagine a visit from plod would be a real shake up to anyone who wasn't accustomed to such visits.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Worst part of that video is you riding in the middle of the carriageway primary lack of consideration for other road users IMO.


----------



## Paul_L (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Worst part of that video is you riding in the middle of the carriageway primary lack of consideration for other road users IMO.



Really?

I'm stunned if you truely believe that.

Was the OP not fully entitled to be in a strong primary going through the central refuge?

I quite often get gestured at or get shouted at in similar situations, which i just shrug off, but if we have cyclists critising other cyclists for assertive positioning then that is really quite worrying.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Worst part of that video is you riding in the middle of the carriageway primary lack of consideration for other road users IMO.



I imagine you're joking/sarcastic here? On the approach to a pinch point and then a junction, taking the lane makes for good cycling practice. The riding in this video is as taught in the National Standards cycling curriculum.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

I dont do jokes.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Apr 2011)

Wow, I'm a little stunned!! Even if you don't agree with the methodology, do you acknowledge that the cyclist's riding here is as taught in Bikeability/National Standards?


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Lets have a look at the course of events again shall we ? And the OP s action.

Nice wide carriageway, good road surface, light traffic in fact only 2 other road users in view. Assuming the OP is aware of the Mini behind (and not totally oblivious) what harm would moving over have done ? A considerate rider may have moved over, sorry I forgot you dont do considerate do you ?

How could this of affected the course of events ? Well for starters, the mini wouldnt have had to slow down and move out across the hatchings the alleged incident wouldn t have even occured. Secondly the driver may have thought what a considerate rider and then shown the same sort of consideation to the lady ahead. Maybe not ? but we dont know that do we ? She gave the OP plenty of room on the pass,so she wasnt a total loon.

Now the incident itself, or so called incident! The lady in question showed no sign of one happening didnt even look at the mini, The OP cycled straight on past her with no sign of concern at the time,or so it seems to me. Its only when he gets home looks at the footage and sees some mileage on here to my mind, that his blood starts to curdle.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Wow, I'm a little stunned!! Even if you don't agree with the methodology, do you acknowledge that the cyclist's riding here is as taught in Bikeability/National Standards?



Yep! Just lacking in the common sense dept.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Worst part of that video is you riding in the middle of the carriageway primary lack of consideration for other road users IMO.



Going through a pinch point at a pedestrian refuge, with a side road on the left and a bloody great hole across the left-most 4 feet of the carriageway, and you say they shouldn't have been in primary position? Come on now, his positioning was perfect.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Apr 2011)

Yes, my first thoughts was that lukesdad missed both the pinch point and the pothole. Lukesdad, you do realise that National Standards cycling like this is promoted as best practice by the government, RoSPA, Cyclecraft (the equivalent to the police roadcraft manual), and quite a number of other experts? I find it unusual that anyone could seriously dismiss such a well-thought out and good curriculum that has such wide acceptance. Even more is the dismissing an important tenet of Cyclecraft, which is shared, I believe by the roadcraft manual. I can't imagine any police officer being taken seriously over a suggestion that BRSU did anything less than best practice there.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

MrGrumpyCyclist said:


> Going through a pinch point at a pedestrian refuge, with a side road on the left and a bloody great hole across the left-most 4 feet of the carriageway, and you say they shouldn't have been in primary position? Come on now, his positioning was perfect.




Thats a bloody great hole is it ? We must have canyons round here then !


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Yes, my first thoughts was that lukesdad missed both the pinch point and the pothole. Lukesdad, you do realise that National Standards cycling like this is promoted as best practice by the government, RoSPA, Cyclecraft (the equivalent to the police roadcraft manual), and quite a number of other experts? I find it unusual that anyone could seriously dismiss such a well-thought out and good curriculum that has such wide acceptance. Even more is the dismissing an important tenet of Cyclecraft, which is shared, I believe by the roadcraft manual. I can't imagine any police officer being taken seriously over a suggestion that BRSU did anything less than best practice there.




Im not a police officer.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Funny you follow this best practice, and come across all these incidents, and I follow common sense and experience and don t, isn t it ?


----------



## BentMikey (10 Apr 2011)

Perhaps we should have a little comparison of mileage, the difference between the general attitude of London drivers and those in Wales, and the sheer density (or not) of traffic? 

Furthermore, I expect that the definition of "incident" might be rather different between yourself, and something I consider worth youtubing. It's fairly evident that many London and other city cyclist youtubers have a much higher rate of uploading videos than I do, perhaps partly because they commute at busier times than I do. I think I have around 150 examples of bad driving in several years, almost all of these are minor and posted as nothing more than a consequence to the driver, and quite a few videos are not even of any kind of "incident" at all. Around 1 in 5000 drivers that I encounter, I think, which is very uplifting about the general goodness of most drivers.


----------



## 400bhp (10 Apr 2011)

As usual the debate here is focussed on the wrong issues.

The issue is not only about how close the left hook was but whether the driver had control over his car, such that they could make an avoiding manouvre if circumstances presented themselves. 

In this case it is clear from the cars road position and speed the driver was committed to the overtake. 

I see this a lot when cars overtake other cars. Pull out and floor it and therefore leave no margin for error. 

Does anyone really believe the mini driver managed to compute, in the time available, that bike had a child on back therefore will be going slower.

Apologies for any bad grammar. Posted on my phone.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Really! How about 6 weeks in London at the start of the year 1500 miles covered and not one moment to mention. I rode to work for 11 years from Wimbledon to Park Lane and have covered 3100 miles this year so far.


----------



## Clandy (10 Apr 2011)

I am surprised that there are cyclists who think this kind of appalling driving is acceptable. The driver should have waited for the vehicle in front, the cyclist (whether you apologists for Clarksonite driving like it or not, bicycles ARE vehicles), to clear the junction before turning in.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Clandy said:


> I am surprised that there are cyclists who think this kind of appalling driving is acceptable. The driver should have waited for the vehicle in front, the cyclist (whether you apologists for Clarksonite driving like it or not, bicycles ARE vehicles), to clear the junction before turning in.




I also find it surprising, that you....find this type of cycling acceptable.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

If you follow the doctrine that this is my bit of road and Im sticking to it. You cannot expect other road users to act any differently can you ?


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Clandy said:


> I am surprised that there are cyclists who think this kind of appalling driving is acceptable. The driver should have waited for the vehicle in front, the cyclist (whether you apologists for Clarksonite driving like it or not, bicycles ARE vehicles), to clear the junction before turning in.




If you are referring to me I have not commented on the driving only the cycling.


----------



## downfader (10 Apr 2011)

I find this disheartening for a number of reasons... that people have argued against what seems pretty clearcut, and that this has gone to 9 pages. That others on the forums are so casual about how close drivers will come to them or cut in front of them. 

It kind of makes myself, and I'm sure others will wonder the same, if some of us who have campaigned for safer conditions have been wasting our time? If you really struggle to empathise with the situation presented then there is something wrong. I certainly dont want to come on here and read that any of the against's on here have suddenly been hit by a driver because they dont understand best practice (primary through pinch points), or that someone has been forced to give up cycling because they've been left hooked.

That driver didnt know the distance between herself and the bike. They were taking a gamble, either that the cyclist would slow/stop, or that they had just enough space. That is if they'd even noticed the cyclist in the first place given the hand gestures.

EBC

(I'm now unsubscribing to yet another thread that I thought was pretty clearcut)


----------



## dodgy (10 Apr 2011)

9 pages.

Why was the mini driver gesticulating towards the OP in the first place?


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

downfader said:


> I find this disheartening for a number of reasons... that people have argued against what seems pretty clearcut, and that this has gone to 9 pages. That others on the forums are so casual about how close drivers will come to them or cut in front of them.
> 
> It kind of makes myself, and I'm sure others will wonder the same, if some of us who have campaigned for safer conditions have been wasting our time? If you really struggle to empathise with the situation presented then there is something wrong. I certainly dont want to come on here and read that any of the against's on here have suddenly been hit by a driver because they dont understand best practice (primary through pinch points), or that someone has been forced to give up cycling because they've been left hooked.
> 
> ...



"That driver didn t even see the second cyclist " Her attention was focused on the OP wrongly of course.


----------



## Clandy (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> I also find it surprising, that you....find this type of cycling acceptable.



Seriously? If it is good enough for the Institute of Advanced Motorists, then it is good enough for me. 

http://www.iam.org.uk/latest_news/cyclistsclaimyourlanesaysiam.html

also

http://road.cc/content/news/15646-iam-urges-cyclists-claim-their-lane


----------



## Clandy (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> If you are referring to me I have not commented on the driving only the cycling.





If I was referring to you, I would have quoted you.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Clandy said:


> Seriously? If it is good enough for the Institute of Advanced Motorists, then it is good enough for me.
> 
> http://www.iam.org.u...anesaysiam.html
> 
> ...




Thats your choice to make. Ill stick with focusing on the road Im riding on thanks.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Clandy said:


> If I was referring to you, I would have quoted you.




Which cyclists were you referring to then ?


----------



## Clandy (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Which cyclists were you referring to then ?





Those who believe that aggressive and inattentive driving is acceptable.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Clandy said:


> Those who believe that aggressive and inattentive driving is acceptable.



......and aggresive and inattentive cycling ?


----------



## Manonabike (10 Apr 2011)

downfader said:


> I find this disheartening for a number of reasons... that people have argued against what seems pretty clearcut, and that this has gone to 9 pages. That others on the forums are so casual about how close drivers will come to them or cut in front of them.
> 
> It kind of makes myself, and I'm sure others will wonder the same, *if some of us who have campaigned for safer conditions have been wasting our time? If you really struggle to empathise with the situation presented then there is something wrong.* I certainly dont want to come on here and read that any of the against's on here have suddenly been hit by a driver because they dont understand best practice (primary through pinch points), or that someone has been forced to give up cycling because they've been left hooked.
> 
> ...



Downfader, Any campaign for safer driving is welcome in my view. I don't condone what the driver of this Mini did, however, I felt the OP exaggerated the situation. Maybe one gets to see too many dangerous driving maneuvers that when faced with a situation like OP described one cannot see the danger. 
I've watched the video several times and still feel the first and some of the following posts are an over reaction.... an attitude that might set us further behind in the struggle to gain respect on the road. 

*</h3><h3 class="r">*


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Thats a bloody great hole is it ? We must have canyons round here then !







It's more than big enough to warrant moving out to go around it even if there weren't a pinch point there. As it is, there are at least three separate reasons for being out in the carriageway at that point.


----------



## Clandy (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> ......and aggresive and inattentive cycling ?





If there had been any in the video posted I would criticise it.


----------



## Gandalf (10 Apr 2011)

I fully concur with Downfader's sentiments upthread. I have been following this thread with interest and to be honest it has left me feeling rather depressed. This thread is by no means atypical. It starts out with an example of very poor driving indeed, though as ever there are those who seem to think it is acceptable or at least very minor and not worth mentioning.

To a point I can understand the emphasis on trying to quantify the amount of danger caused to the OP and the other cyclist in the video. Physical injury or death will understandably trump merely being treated like sh1t. As usual we have had the usual batting to and fro of Highway Code extracts and the inevitable nit picking .

The 'message' I am getting is that unlike other spheres of human interaction, road users can be as rude, selfish and inconsiderate as they please. The only caveat seems to be that they have to prove in the court of public opinion that no physical injury was caused and that the the danger imposed was minimal.... that and having a larger, heavier vehicle to bully underlings out of the way.

I cannot speak on behalf of the cyclist that was left hooked but had I been placed in that position I would have felt ' harassment, alarm or distress', regardless of whether or not I had to brake or change direction.

What a sad and depressing prospect. Perhaps we could extend this philosophy more widely, no more having to apologise for inadvertently bumping into somebody's shopping trolley, you could jump queues with gay abandon and urinate in people's front gardens with impunity...it's not as if you are causing injury is it?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Apr 2011)

Gandalf said:


> The 'message' I am getting is that unlike other spheres of human interaction, road users can be as rude, selfish and inconsiderate as they please. The only caveat seems to be that they have to prove in the court of public opinion that no physical injury was caused and that the the danger imposed was minimal.... that and having a larger, heavier vehicle to bully underlings out of the way.



+1


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Apr 2011)

The point being missed is that he whole interaction between road users relies on us having th same reaction to the same circumstances

In this case the cyclist "knew" they could cycle across the junction because no-one should overtake or pull out in front of them. It is the same every time you look at another road user. You assume that they will act appropriately.

Most of this is entirely subconcious - next time you are out, analyse the decisions you are making a little more and it is amazing just how much trust you ut in other road users

People like this idiot in the Mini are simply too stupid or arrogant to take this on board and as a result are dangerous


----------



## LazyCat (10 Apr 2011)

I dare say the mini driver would not have attempted that manoeuvre if the cyclist and child was a big 50 ton truck capable of crushing her in seconds. Had she tried it, her ears would still be ringing from the air horn and swearing from the lorry driver. 

Why such appalling driving all of a sudden becomes acceptable if you interchange a lorry for a cyclist is entirely beyond me.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1359753"]
Eh? That pic is posted from a rear facing camera and as such the bit where you'd ride (on the right hand side) there is hardly a hole worth mentioning.
[/quote]
Eh? No, that pic is posted from the front facing camera shot at 0:18, just after the poster has switched to that one. The hole is across several feet of the left hand part of the carriageway.


----------



## EdgEy (10 Apr 2011)

Some of the posts above are quite hilarious. You get the feeling people are simply trying to be provocative.

You're basically saying that because noone was injured, it's fine. Perfectly fine and good chaps, move along.

Anyone reasonable can see that the manoeuvre in that video should have no place on our roads.

Stop being daft for the sake of an argument, please.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Apr 2011)

MrGrumpyCyclist said:


> Eh? No, that pic is posted from the front facing camera shot at 0:18, just after the poster has switched to that one. The hole is across several feet of the left hand part of the carriageway.



Yes, from the rear camera it looks like this:






And I would certainly not cross it at speed (mind you, I have 16" wheels and tend to be cautious when going over leaves)


----------



## delport (10 Apr 2011)

Surely the experiences are just different in all parts of the country?

Quite a few times i've had drivers pass within a few inches of me, and i have thought that was a bit close, or why did he just cut me up from the left side totally unexpectedly, but the roads down here are incredibly busy.London was a worse place to cycle, than here in Hampshire.
But London and Hampshire are worse than other places i've lived in which were safer for cyclists.

I think the emotional part comes in because a child is involved in the video scenario.
As i said yesterday once we are out on the road we are at the mercy of everything and anything.

Some posters may sound cold, but they are probably not intending to be.If i have a close call i just get on with it and add it to my bad experiences of cycling, i've had more good than bad.


----------



## Jezston (10 Apr 2011)

EdgEy said:


> Some of the posts above are quite hilarious. You get the feeling people are simply trying to be provocative.
> 
> You're basically saying that because noone was injured, it's fine. Perfectly fine and good chaps, move along.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## BSRU (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Worst part of that video is you riding in the middle of the carriageway primary lack of consideration for other road users IMO.



I bow to your superior mystical knowledge of that section of road, I have only ridden it twice a day for over three years but obviously still have a lot to learn, not .


----------



## BentMikey (10 Apr 2011)

It's really quite a stunning viewpoint, BRSU. Sometimes I lose all faith in humanity.


----------



## BSRU (10 Apr 2011)

BentMikey said:


> It's really quite a stunning viewpoint, BRSU. Sometimes I lose all faith in humanity.



It's ironic, if the other cyclist had been in primary the mini would have more than likely not overtaken them and instead waited behind, then there would be no video or thread.

At the junction the other cyclist was overtaken, I was often left hooked by impatient drivers until I improved my road position.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

BSRU said:


> I bow to your superior mystical knowledge of that section of road, I have only ridden it twice a day for over three years but obviously still have a lot to learn, not .




Nothing mystical about it. You posted a video. I commented on it if you dont like the views you get, dont post a vid. and you re right there is no more you can learn !


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

EdgEy said:


> Some of the posts above are quite hilarious. You get the feeling people are simply trying to be provocative.
> 
> You're basically saying that because noone was injured, it's fine. Perfectly fine and good chaps, move along.
> 
> ...




Nothing daft or hilarious about road safety, and I cant see where anybody has stated the manoeuvre was fine, are you trying to be provocative by any chance ?


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

Jezston make a note of my signature for future reference, Ta


----------



## Bicycle (10 Apr 2011)

I love to see a healthy discussion. I wonder if I am alone in the following:

Until I started to peep at these Cyclist Forum tings, I'd never heard of 'primary' other than with reference to my children's education.

I did my Cycling Proficiency at the age of about 8 in the early seventies and since then I've had no training on bicycles.

I have licences for all sorts of vehicles and still ride a bicycle quite a lot.

I believe that almost all car drivers (other than those in the cycling fraternity) would be as clueless as I was about the meaning of the primary position.

Likewise, almost all car drivers would be inclined on occasion to be slightly irked that a bicycle was slowing them down by 'hogging the road'.

I'm not saying they'd be right, but the thought does occur that they might feel miffed.

I do not nencessarily see it as a cardinal sin for a car driver not to know that a cyclist will at times take the primary road position.

I drive around bicycles and horses a lot. Some riders (bike and beast) are smart, clever, considerate and some are not. 

The MINI driver in the clip is by no means driving with thought and consideration, but by what magical means were they meant to understand why a cyclist would choose to ride along away from the edge of the road at a choke point?

I do not mean to offend, but not all motorists are members of the cycling fraternity.


----------



## benb (10 Apr 2011)

BentMikey said:


> It's really quite a stunning viewpoint, BRSU. Sometimes I lose all faith in humanity lukesdad.



FIFY!


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Apr 2011)

Bicycle said:


> The MINI driver in the clip is by no means driving with thought and consideration, but by what magical means were they meant to understand why a cyclist would choose to ride along away from the edge of the road at a choke point?



The issue is not that they were unaware of the cyclist's need to "claim the lane" (take primary position) at this point. It is that once the driver had overtaken the first cyclist, they were more interested in showing anger towards that cyclist than in discharging their responsibility to take care around the second cyclist and chld when in charge of nearly a tonne and a half of lethal machinery, and that their getting round the corner a couple of seconds earlier took precedence over the safety of a cyclist and child. This kind of irresponsible attitude is truly a sickness that afflicts our roads.

Having said that, the fact that such a large number of drivers are completely oblivious to needs of other road users whom they are likely to encounter quite frequently during their driving is a shocking indictment of the level of training and competence that is considered sufficient to allow someone a licence to take such a dangerous machine into a public place.


----------



## boydj (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Nothing mystical about it. You posted a video. I commented on it if you dont like the views you get, dont post a vid. and you re right there is no more you can learn !



You seem to be in a minority by a long way in advocating that cyclists should stay in the gutter keep to the left and allow cars to squeeze past at pinch points. Why so confrontational?

The mini driver clearly has an attitude problem in being more intent on gesticulating than in carrying out a potentially dangerous manoeuvre.


----------



## Crackle (10 Apr 2011)

BSRU said:


> It's ironic, if the other cyclist had been in primary the mini would have more than likely not overtaken them and instead waited behind, then there would be no video or thread.
> 
> At the junction the other cyclist was overtaken, I was often left hooked by impatient drivers until I improved my road position.



What's ironic is that if you hadn't been in the position you were, the driver would not have been pissed with you and diverted their attention to gesticulating at you rather than the road in front. Of course that doesn't excuse poor driving but I find the subtleties of good road use elude some people and you seem to be one of them.

I question whether you need to be in primary at that pinch point in that situation at that moment. I go through many of them and how I take each one varies. It varies because the situation is always different. To merely take a line that works for you shows a lack of dynamic judgement and a disregard for other road users even more breathtaking than the poor judgement of the mini driver.

The very fact that you carry two cameras indicates to me you are a cyclist looking for controversy. If you put as much thought into your cycling as you did into your videos you might well do a better job of making the roads safer for cyclists instead of wearying the world with situations you have had a part in making. 

Of course I'd be surprised if you acknowledge any of that or if I'm not overwhelmed by objections to my views but I tire of this kind of mock shock horror which seems to be the raison d'etre of some posters in this forum.


----------



## Clandy (10 Apr 2011)

Crackle said:


> What's ironic is that if you hadn't been in the position you were, the driver would not have been pissed with you and diverted their attention to gesticulating at you rather than the road in front. Of course that doesn't excuse poor driving but I find the subtleties of good road use elude some people and you seem to be one of them.
> 
> I question whether you need to be in primary at that pinch point in that situation at that moment. I go through many of them and how I take each one varies. It varies because the situation is always different. To merely take a line that works for you shows a lack of dynamic judgement and a disregard for other road users even more breathtaking than the poor judgement of the mini driver.
> 
> ...





I carry two cameras. I do so because having been T-boned by SMIDSY and having had to go through a lengthy insurance claim, I now want to make damned sure I have evidence in the event of another SMIDSY incident. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with 'looking for controversy'.


----------



## boydj (10 Apr 2011)

The only horror here is the number of people advocating that the cyclist should have bailed out in favour of the mini at a pinch point with a pot-hole on the left. This logic is on a par with Rory McIlroy's golf over that last couple of hours.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

boydj said:


> You seem to be in a minority by a long way in advocating that cyclists should stay in the gutter keep to the left and allow cars to squeeze past at pinch points. Why so confrontational?
> 
> The mini driver clearly has an attitude problem in being more intent on gesticulating than in carrying out a potentially dangerous manoeuvre.




As opposed to the majority of forum members who won t post in commuting because of threads like this ?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Apr 2011)

Crackle said:


> The very fact that you carry two cameras indicates to me you are a cyclist looking for controversy. If you put as much thought into your cycling as you did into your videos you might well do a better job of making the roads safer for cyclists instead of wearying the world with situations you have had a part in making.



I don't know about the OP here, but I carry one video camera, and will probably get another sometime. I have posted the reasons in my blog:

*Learning* – I have found it very useful to look back at incidents and see whether I can learn from them. I have also found it very useful to look at other people’s incidents and learn from them. I have also found it useful to get feedback on my own video clips from other experienced cyclists and learn from them. (Actually, it turns out that this has been by far the most valuable aspect.)
*Retribution* – yes, it feels good to be able to name and shame drivers who do bad things to me. (And to show some idiotic things cyclists do as well.)
*Evidence* – the way our laws work makes it very difficult to claim redress if needed. I have never had to do that, thank goodness, but it would help if needed. (See the lawyer’s comments in this One Show clip.) (This was my original reason for getting a camera.)
*Improving the situation* – (admittedly in a very small way) I know of a number of cases of cyclists using video evidence to show the employers of appalling commercial drivers what their staff are doing. This often results in drivers undergoing additional training, often compulsory.
*Behaviour modification* – there are people who claim that the presence of a video camera has the effect of improving the behaviour of drivers. I don’t really know whether this is true, but it seems plausible.
I really don't see why you would have a problem with this, or why you would feel a need to attack the OP in this personal manner.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Apr 2011)

boydj said:


> The only horror here is the number of people advocating that the cyclist should have bailed out in favour of the mini at a pinch point with a pot-hole on the left. This logic is on a par with Rory McIlroy's golf over that last couple of hours.




Bailed out ? Are you some sort of fighter pilot ? The OP has allready stated that he has ridden this road regularly for 3 years. If he lacks the bike handling skills to safely negotiate a hazard he allready knows to be there perhaps a reduction in speed might be in order.


----------



## Clandy (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Bailed out ? Are you some sort of fighter pilot ? The OP has allready stated that he has ridden this road regularly for 3 years. If he lacks the bike handling skills to safely negotiate a hazard he allready knows to be there perhaps a reduction in speed might be in order.





Do you even own a bicycle?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Bailed out ? Are you some sort of fighter pilot ? The OP has allready stated that he has ridden this road regularly for 3 years. If he lacks the bike handling skills to safely negotiate a hazard he allready knows to be there perhaps a reduction in speed might be in order.



Hm. If it didn't say that you are a "senior member" here, I would be concluding that you are just trolling. The cyclist taking the video clearly knows very well how to negotiate safely the multiple hazards at this point in the road, as indicated by his text-book perfect road positioning. (Or perhaps you are just trolling?)


----------



## jefmcg (10 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Nothing daft or hilarious about road safety, and I cant see where anybody has stated the manoeuvre was fine, are you trying to be provocative by any chance ?





lukesdad said:


> Now the incident itself, or so called incident! The lady in question showed no sign of one happening didnt even look at the mini, The OP cycled straight on past her with no sign of concern at the time,or so it seems to me. Its only when he gets home looks at the footage and sees some mileage on here to my mind, that his blood starts to curdle.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Apr 2011)

LazyCat said:


> I dare say the mini driver would not have attempted that manoeuvre if the cyclist and child was a big 50 ton truck capable of crushing her in seconds. Had she tried it, her ears would still be ringing from the air horn and swearing from the lorry driver.



You'd be surprised how many do just that ...


----------



## GFamily (10 Apr 2011)

Crackle said:


> What's ironic is that if you hadn't been in the position you were, the driver would not have been pissed with you



He was in that position because it prevented a dangerous overtake. 

If he hadn't been in that position, the driver WOULD have performed a dangerous and illegal overtake. 

The driver did not perform a dangerous and illegal overtake of the OP

The driver did perform an illegal overtake later on. 

Why should we pander to incompetent drivers? And why do you excuse them?


----------



## Jezston (11 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Nothing mystical about it. You posted a video. I commented on it if you dont like the views you get, dont post a vid. and you re right there is no more you can learn !




If you don't like people disagreeing with you, there's no need to hurl insults at them.


----------



## classic33 (11 Apr 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Im not a police officer.





Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you not said you are a taxi driver?


----------



## slowmotion (11 Apr 2011)

Do you have to be angry to be a real cyclist? These threads run to pretty much the same formula.


----------



## Shaun (11 Apr 2011)

I don't like the way this thread is going. Disagreement is one thing, personal attacks are another - and it was starting to get personal.

Pretty much everything has been covered in the previous 12 pages and I don't think there is much more that can be added regarding the content of the video, so I've closed the thread.


----------

