# Ambulance



## benb (16 Jul 2014)

This happened this morning. I obviously get out of the way of emergency vehicles as quickly as I safely can, but this shook me up. IMO the driver was way too close to me.


----------



## Custom24 (16 Jul 2014)

I tend to agree. To little space for the speed. If you got a registration, I would report it.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jul 2014)

Jeezo. I despair.


----------



## benb (16 Jul 2014)

I might drop the ambulance trust an email, haven't decided.

I don't want to make more of it than it was, but it did unsettle me.


----------



## AndyRM (16 Jul 2014)

You'd be making far too much of it if you reported that IMO. You were basically stopped having anticipated his pass and given plenty of space by the driver.

Yep, he bombed past you, but didn't put you in any danger so what's the issue?


----------



## benb (16 Jul 2014)

Plenty of space, really?

I felt endangered.
I probably won't report it, but I expect a higher standard of driving frankly.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Jul 2014)

Feck me I was unsettled by the size of the moon in tonight's sky, but I am not gonna write to Brian Cox to complain about it.

Seriously, get over it.


----------



## AndyRM (17 Jul 2014)

Perhaps 'plenty' was the wrong word, but from your video I'm not sure I'd have felt 'endangered'. 

He was a bit close, but not dangerously so IMO. I suppose it comes down to how we respond to things on the road.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

I imagine if you were there in person you might feel differently.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Jul 2014)

If I was there in person I'd have paid attention to the great big loud sirens behind me and pulled over. But you caught it on camera, well done. You're a modern-day Hitchcock.


----------



## Garethgas (17 Jul 2014)

I stopped the video at 18s and you can clearly see the driver has left you plenty of room.
At 35s you were practically stationary. 
Just because you were startled, why cause trouble for someone who has a difficult job to do and was just going about his daily business?
I really despair at some people's mentality.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> If I was there in person I'd have paid attention to the great big loud sirens behind me and pulled over. But you caught it on camera, well done. You're a modern-day Hitchcock.



Put a sock in it, I did pull over as soon as I heard the sirens. What's your problem?


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

Garethgas said:


> I stopped the video at 18s and you can clearly see the driver has left you plenty of room.
> At 35s you were practically stationary.
> Just because you were startled, why cause trouble for someone who has a difficult job to do and was just going about his daily business?
> I really despair at some people's mentality.



How am I causing trouble? I already said I wasn't going to report it, but in my opinion the driving was substandard.


----------



## AndyRM (17 Jul 2014)

I'm not sure there's a problem here, just a difference in emotional response. And perhaps differing opinions on what constitutes decent driving in an emergency situation.


----------



## Garethgas (17 Jul 2014)

benb said:


> How am I causing trouble? I already said I wasn't going to report it, but in my opinion the driving was substandard.



If you're not going to report it then that's fine.
I can't help wondering (and only you know for sure) whether you were a bit startled by the combination of his speed and the siren?


----------



## irw (17 Jul 2014)

I don't usually reply to these type of threads, 'cos I'm pretty rubbish at explaining my thoughts behind these sort of things, but having watched the video, decided to throw in my 2p-

It looks like a bit of an awkward situation for both parties really- you obviously wouldn't want to ride through the crossing and hold the ambulance up, so stopped before so they could get past. However, if you look at the position of the island, and based on the distance you were from it, the ambulance gave you as much room as it would appear possible without hurtling into the traffic lights- Admittedly they could have been going a little slower, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong by saying that the person driving that vehicle will be highly trained- they may be a little on the close and fast side, but will no doubt have spotted that you'd pulled over and were slowing, if not stopped, and probably made a 'good' judgement about it being safe to pass.

Hope this makes sense! I'm not trying to 'argue' for either side, but trying to see it from both points of view!


----------



## Black Country Ste (17 Jul 2014)

I wouldn't report that but would pass it on as feedback as I did with one experience a good while ago. For the speed, it was closer than I would have liked but far from dangerous. It was only on lights and caught me by surprise.


----------



## Garethgas (17 Jul 2014)

Black Country Ste said:


> I wouldn't report that but would pass it on as feedback as I did with one experience a good while ago. For the speed, it was closer than I would have liked but far from dangerous. It was only on lights and caught me by surprise.




I think my reaction to that one would have been pretty much like yours. 
Perhaps a bit more swearing though


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

Garethgas said:


> If you're not going to report it then that's fine.
> I can't help wondering (and only you know for sure) whether you were a bit startled by the combination of his speed and the siren?



Quite probably.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3183760, member: 30090"]Did it not occur to you that stopping by a pinch point would lead to less space?[/QUOTE]

Tell me, what would you have done? 
Carried through the junction and then stopped?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jul 2014)

tbh I'm not that impressed with the assumption the driver seems to have made that traffic, if any, approaching that junction to join the road the ambulance was on was going to give way.... but it's a hypothetical concern.

From a riding to work perspective I've been known to stop and get off the bike and on to the pavement in similar situations; sirens from behind, pinch point immediately in front.


----------



## Berties (17 Jul 2014)

Same with lorries, they are so used to driving close to other road users and objects they forget at speed it's not good for the 2 wheel brigade.......it's one of my pet hates


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Jul 2014)

benb said:


> Put a sock in it, I did pull over as soon as I heard the sirens. What's your problem?



No problem, what's yours? Quite clearly you have one if you post videos and complain about something as insignificant as this. You pulled over, you were aware of it, and yet were still "startled"? Yeh, right. I bet you were already thinking about the thread title before he went past you.


----------



## GrasB (17 Jul 2014)

That looks like about 1m at speed, that's uncomfortably close.

Marmion, being startled isn't just about being caught off-guard, it's also about how threatened you feel by something as it happens. The amount of times I think "this is going to be close" and I get startled by the closeness despite knowing it was going to be that close. It's a useful fight or flight mechanism.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Jul 2014)

GrasB said:


> Marmion, being startled isn't just about being caught off-guard, it's also about how threatened you feel by something as it happens.



There's no point trying to reason with me, I'm a very unreasonable person


----------



## Herzog (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3183839, member: 30090"]Stopped, gof off and pulled my bike onto the pavement.

Or if you want to stay on the road ge sure to maintain eye contact.[/QUOTE]
As User30090 above writes, approaching a pinch point, I would have been tempted to hop up onto the pavement...


----------



## roadrash (17 Jul 2014)

Showed this to my son ,he's is a first responder same as the driver in the video ,his opinion is you were given room , could have stopped well before the pinch point , driver did nowt wrong and if you think that it needs reporting ,your a tool...happy to help.


----------



## BSRU (17 Jul 2014)

In my personal opinion I would not report it.


----------



## Markymark (17 Jul 2014)

Seriously this was nothing major. It doesn't need yet another thread. I have a cam but don;t feel the need to put up every last time someone comes fairly close to me. They were attending an emergency, it wasn't that bad.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Jul 2014)

Marmion said:


> Feck me I was unsettled by the size of the moon in tonight's sky, but I am not gonna write to Brian Cox to complain about it.
> 
> Seriously, get over it.


I think your comment is a bit crap, but it also made me giggle.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3183913, member: 45"]"Give as much room as you would when overtaking a car"? No he didn't.

And nobody has mentioned yet that the driver failed to slow sufficiently when approaching an amber to red light. Both the overtake and the RLJ are contrary to the training that he would have received. It shouldn't be a complaint, but this bloke needs a little reminder of what his driving standard should be.[/QUOTE]
I think this is the important point, his driving was below the standard that he has been trained to. People who drive emergency vehicles often get a bit carried away. I personally think its worth reporting from the point of view that the driver needs a little bit of a refresher/reminder around their blues and twos training.
Having spent a large part of my career in the back of an ambulance responding to an emergency I know that there is no such situation that entitles the driver to endanger other road users. Our drivers would not have been allowed to drive like that.


----------



## ianrauk (17 Jul 2014)

Something over nothing.


----------



## roadrash (17 Jul 2014)

pity there isnt an unlike button for some of these responses


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

I've already said I'm not going to report it.
I felt it was too close. What if I hadn't been so quick to get over? (and I got over as quickly as I could)

I don't really understand why some people feel the need to be quite so unpleasant.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3183839, member: 30090"]Stopped, gof off and pulled my bike onto the pavement.

Or if you want to stay on the road ge sure to maintain eye contact.[/QUOTE]

There wasn't time to get onto the pavement.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Seriously this was nothing major. It doesn't need yet another thread. *I have a cam but don;t feel the need to put up every last time someone comes fairly close to me*. They were attending an emergency, it wasn't that bad.



Nor do I. If I did I'd be putting up half a dozen videos a day.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Jul 2014)

Black Country Ste said:


> I wouldn't report that but would pass it on as feedback as I did with one experience a good while ago. For the speed, it was closer than I would have liked but far from dangerous. It was only on lights and caught me by surprise.





Now that's what I'd call unsettling!

GC


----------



## tadpole (17 Jul 2014)

benb said:


> I don't really understand why some people feel the need to be quite so unpleasant.


 It's the internet, sadly full of ******es, but unlike the pub they are too far away to punch in the face, and they know it. So they are free to talk crap and get away without getting their just deserts. 
I'd not report it myself but the driver was going to fast when approaching the traffic lights, and was too close to you.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Jul 2014)

benb said:


> I've already said I'm not going to report it.
> I felt it was too close. What if I hadn't been so quick to get over? (and I got over as quickly as I could)
> 
> I don't really understand why some people feel the need to be quite so unpleasant.


See I would, not to get anyone into trouble, but because the driver needs a refressher about driving safely. In my ICU career I've met people who've been killed or seriously injuries after RTC's with emergency vehcles - there's no excuse, no emergency warrants putting other road users at risk.


----------



## Origamist (17 Jul 2014)

Looking at the clip, the vehicle was moving quickly and you do did not have a huge amount of time to react (you were also going downhill). What’s more, no one on the internet allows for reaction time or the possibility that you will not always make the perfect decision in any given situation. That said, there was possibly an opportunity to take to the pavement as the kerb was dropped just before you slowed, but we are now in the "counsel of perfection" phase of the discussion.

There were numerous hazard perception triggers for the driver – such as the opposing lane was not clear, the slowing cyclist, the pinch point and road furniture, the car waiting to turn right, the sign on the approach warning of children crossing and the traffic lights changing just before they arrived the junction.

Given your position – you were likely to get a close pass (it looks like 2-3ft), but I do think the speed at which you were passed was excessive given the conditions and I can understand why this is likely to have shook you up a bit.


----------



## GrasB (17 Jul 2014)

roadrash said:


> Showed this to my son ,he's is a first responder same as the driver in the video ,his opinion is you were given room , could have stopped well before the pinch point , driver did nowt wrong and if you think that it needs reporting ,your a tool...happy to help.


3 from first hearing the siren on camera to starting to brake. First he has to work out were it's coming from & sometimes that takes a good 2 or 3 seconds then he has to work out what to do. All in all 3 seconds from first being audible to a response is quite good. This is assuming that the OP could actually hear the ambulance as early as the camera. In my experience you often can't.

As for the driver. He fell bellow the standard of driving given in the highway code let alone any advanced driver training. Passing someone at speed with 1m or less room is not what I call advanced & responsible driving practice.


----------



## CopperBrompton (17 Jul 2014)

I think the driver expected you to stop rather than slow, so wasn't expecting you to get so close to the pinch-point. You can see if you freeze the video that he was as close to the traffic island as possible.

I'd say the driver was going too fast approaching a light (emergency vehicles have to treat red lights as give-way signs), but you also could have stopped or gone onto the pavement.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

It certainly felt at the time as though I stopped as quickly as I could.

@User I was stopped, can't recall whether it was my left or right foot I was resting on.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3184175, member: 30090"]No time to hop onto the pavement?

BS Ben that is.[/QUOTE]

I can't do bunny hops.

Funny how everyone who wasn't there is an expert on what was possible and what wasn't.


----------



## Paul99 (17 Jul 2014)

Six of one and half a dozen of the other is my opinion.

Driver could have done things differently, cyclist too. Again my opinion.

A lot of the posts on here are saying that the driver shouldn't be passing so close at speed, well if they are responding to an emergency they should get there as quickly as possible. I don't believe @benb was in any danger, his perception of the incident is different. He was there and I wasn't but I don't think I would have been shook up, unsettled or felt endangered. Maybe I'm made of sterner stuff.

If the emergency services followed the highway code to the letter the death rates in this country will go through the roof.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3184222, member: 30090"]Next best thing, small wheelie onto the pavement and the rear wheel will follow.[/QUOTE]

I suppose I could have done that, but the whole thing happened in just a few seconds, and I'm not sure I could have safely done it in the time I had.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3184222, member: 30090"]Next best thing, small wheelie onto the pavement and the rear wheel will follow.[/QUOTE]

That's way too risky, certainly for me, to attempt. Get it wrong and you could end up flat out on the road with a speeding car just passing. Safer just to pull over and stop.

GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3184300, member: 30090"]Did you ride at all when you was a kid?[/QUOTE]

Yes.


GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3184392, member: 30090"]And approaching a kerb you never pulled a wheelie so the front wheel could clear said kerb.[/QUOTE]

Not while riding parallel to it.


GC


----------



## Hip Priest (17 Jul 2014)

I wouldn't report it, but I can see why it might've left the OP shaken up. I also see no problem with the OP's riding, reactions...etc

And my parents are still together, and I'm not violent.


----------



## GrasB (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3184222, member: 30090"]Next best thing, small wheelie onto the pavement and the rear wheel will follow.[/QUOTE]
Seen many people on the deck after attempting that trick, normally they end falling into the road!


----------



## loother (17 Jul 2014)

In my opinion the driver approached the cyclist too fast and too close. He/she had adequate time to assess the conditions including speed, vehicles from the opposite direction, traffic lights and road lay out and most importantly the cyclists probable reactions. The FRU driver should have IMHO been almost at the same speed as the cyclist at the point of overtaking. I am afraid that, I must admit, I do see some responders taking chances from time to time that maybe more experienced drivers would NEVER do.


----------



## anyuser (17 Jul 2014)

GrasB said:


> Seen many people on the deck after attempting that trick, normally they end falling into the road!



This is true, don't ask me how i know this


----------



## Profpointy (17 Jul 2014)

anyuser said:


> This is true, don't ask me how i know this



it's a trick I learned not to do aged about 8 - unless at right angles to curb. To try at an acute angle would likely have you needing the ambulance after they'd got you out from underneath.


----------



## roadrash (17 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3183913, member: 45"]"Give as much room as you would when overtaking a car"? No he didn't.

And nobody has mentioned yet that the driver failed to slow sufficiently when approaching an amber to red light. Both the overtake and the RLJ are contrary to the training that he would have received. It shouldn't be a complaint, but this bloke needs a little reminder of what his driving standard should be.[/QUOTE]



GrasB said:


> 3 from first hearing the siren on camera to starting to brake. First he has to work out were it's coming from & sometimes that takes a good 2 or 3 seconds then he has to work out what to do. All in all 3 seconds from first being audible to a response is quite good. This is assuming that the OP could actually hear the ambulance as early as the camera. In my experience you often can't.
> 
> As for the driver. He fell bellow the standard of driving given in the highway code let alone any advanced driver training. Passing someone at speed with 1m or less room is not what I call advanced & responsible driving practice.


 
i will show him these responses when he returns from his holiday in 2 weeks time, just to see the difference of oppinion, remember they will be his responses , NOT MINE


----------



## Scoosh (17 Jul 2014)

MOD NOTE:
A number of Off-Topic posts have been Deleted.

Keep on topic, stop the personal stuff and the thread can continue - but most of what is worth saying has already been said.


----------



## growingvegetables (17 Jul 2014)

Just a wee tuppenyworth - worth passing on to his bosses, imo. Not as a complaint - but to raise the question whether their drivers have had any cycle awareness training since they passed their Cycling Proficiency 30 years ago. If not, why not?

Helpful hint (you wouldn't ever suggest I was less than helpful, would you!) - they almost certainly haven't, and probably expect that cyclists will be riding in the gutter. Yup - train the nation's kids in Bikeability standards. But forget to tell the drivers. 

The management might well welcome the suggestion?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jul 2014)

roadrash said:


> Showed this to my son ,he's is a first responder same as the driver in the video ,his opinion is you were given room , could have stopped well before the pinch point , driver did nowt wrong and if you think that it needs reporting ,your a tool...happy to help.


Showed this to my brother-in-law, he's is a first responder same as the driver in the video, his opinion based on 20-odd years as a paramedic, and 40-odd as a cyclist, is you were not given enough room, you chose not to stop before the pinch point and the driver was at fault for not adapting to that choice, driver did plenty wrong and if you think that it needs reporting, you'd be entitled to think that, and if his management saw the video they would not be happy... happy to help.


----------



## roadrash (17 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Showed this to my brother-in-law, he's is a first responder same as the driver in the video, his opinion based on 20-odd years as a paramedic, and 40-odd as a cyclist, is you were not given enough room, you chose not to stop before the pinch point and the driver was at fault for not adapting to that choice, driver did plenty wrong and if you think that it needs reporting, you'd be entitled to think that, and if his management saw the video they would not be happy... happy to help.


 
like i said previously

i will show him these responses when he returns from his holiday in 2 weeks time, just to see the difference of oppinion, remember they will be his responses , NOT MINE


----------



## CopperBrompton (18 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> you chose not to stop before the pinch point and the driver was at fault for not adapting to that choice


A succinct description of the two causal factors here.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2014)

Trikeman said:


> A succinct description of the two causal factors here.


b-i-l was actually more exercised by the lack of care shown going through the lights and the junction, which I found interesting. He felt the driver probably had focussed too much on the cyclist and took too great a risk going through the junction but stressed, of course, we/he ain't seeing it from the driver's seat.


----------



## Black Country Ste (18 Jul 2014)

roadrash said:


> Showed this to my son ,he's is a first responder same as the driver in the video ,his opinion is you were given room , could have stopped well before the pinch point , driver did nowt wrong and if you think that it needs reporting ,your a tool...happy to help.



A first responder who should know that a big van travelling at speed will unsettle people. That's an awful attitude.


----------



## benb (18 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> you chose not to stop before the pinch point



Well, I did stop before the pinch point, and as quickly as I safely could.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2014)

benb said:


> Well, I did stop before the pinch point, and as quickly as I safely could.


Yes, sorry, you are correct. Poorly worded on my part.


----------



## benb (18 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Yes, sorry, you are correct. Poorly worded on my part.



No prob.


----------



## Lemond (8 Nov 2014)

Taking everything into consideration, such as the traffic lights and island, I find it very hard to see anything "sub standard" with the driving.


----------



## GrasB (8 Nov 2014)

Well besides the fact the speed was stupidly high considering the driver was close to a cyclists & was close to clipping a kerb - which at those sorts of speeds in that sort of situation could lead to a rolled vehicle (rear wheel clips the kerb, putting the car into a left slide & transferring weight to the same side, with a kerb on the left to stop the vehicle from sliding further the most probable result will be a vehicle on its side or roof!). Yeah nothing sub-standard about that.


----------



## Lemond (8 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> Well besides the fact the speed was stupidly high considering the driver was close to a cyclists & was close to clipping a kerb - which at those sorts of speeds in that sort of situation could lead to a rolled vehicle (rear wheel clips the kerb, putting the car into a left slide & transferring weight to the same side, with a kerb on the left to stop the vehicle from sliding further the most probable result will be a vehicle on its side or roof!). Yeah nothing sub-standard about that.



Stupidly high speed? Seriously?


----------



## GrasB (8 Nov 2014)

Yes, seriously, inches away from clipping a kerb considering the space constraints makes that speed stupidly high for that situation. We're talking about a few inches away from crashing the car at that speed.


----------



## Lemond (8 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> Yes, seriously, inches away from clipping a kerb considering the space constraints makes that speed stupidly high for that situation. We're talking about a few inches away from crashing the car at that speed.



So just how many inches is he away from the curb?


----------



## GrasB (8 Nov 2014)

Lemond said:


> So just how many inches is he away from the curb?


Somewhere in the region of 6" looking at the video. Remember at that speed clipping the offside kerb on the corner would have cannoned that axel to the nearside kerb which would see the vehicle mounting the kerb at speed, if they're lucky, however instinct will probably cause them to correct making impact with the kerb face after the drop kerb likely. The front wheels would be hard to say what happens from there but at that speed, with the rear wheels it'll almost certainly be a roll event.


----------



## Lemond (8 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> Somewhere in the region of 6" looking at the video. Remember at that speed clipping the offside kerb on the corner would have cannoned that axel to the nearside kerb which would see the vehicle counting the kerb at speed, if they're lucky, however instinct will probably cause them to correct making impact with the kerb face after the drop kerb likely. The front wheels would be hard to say what happens from there but at that speed, with the rear wheels it'll almost certainly be a roll event.



Oh well. Six inches or six yards, he didn't hit the curb so I guess it doesn't really matter. No crash, no roll, no bother. A simple pass at what looks like a sensible speed. My sympathy lies with the poor sod he was on the way to help.


----------



## GrasB (10 Nov 2014)

Lemond said:


> Oh well. Six inches or six yards, he didn't hit the curb so I guess it doesn't really matter. No crash, no roll, no bother. A simple pass at what looks like a sensible speed. My sympathy lies with the poor sod he was on the way to help.


He was a minor misjudgement away from a collision and it's all okay?


----------



## buggi (10 Nov 2014)

No it shouldn't be reported. By your own admission you had stopped, he had obviously seen you bcoz he pulled out and fast responders are highly trained, they read the road much better than others, that includes noting the amber light and no one on the crossing. In my opinion you were not in danger, even tho his speed may have unsettled you. I wouldn't complain bcoz it might be you he's rushing to next time.


----------



## Origamist (10 Nov 2014)

Lemond said:


> Oh well. Six inches or six yards, he didn't hit the curb so I guess it doesn't really matter. No crash, no roll, no bother. A simple pass at what looks like a sensible speed. My sympathy lies with the poor sod he was on the way to help.


 
Yeah, why bother with any "near miss" reporting. The aviation, maritime and rail industries are daft - not to mention the HSE and all that crazy work-place safety. We can only learn stuff when people get injured or killed.


----------



## CopperCyclist (10 Nov 2014)

The two sides here are Ben and the Ambo driver.

1st Ben. If every road user reacted to me on blue lights at the same speed and in the same manner Ben did, I'd be very happy. As soon as he noticed, he stopped. Thats more than good enough for me. Many road users don't even notice or bother tbh, and most drivers think just showing down to 15mph is fine, and leave me crawling behind them with no safe overtaking opportunity. @benb keep doing what you did with thanks.

The Ambo driver. Too much speed through the junction. We should treat every junction, on green or red, as if it's a give way and we *might* have to stop. He didn't even brake and carried far too much speed through it. That's his main problem. The failure to slow has him charging through the gap, getting closer than he and Ben would have liked, because his speed is so high he didn't have an out and had to keep piling it on so he could get through before Ben got there.

My final word would be this. He is someone doing the wrong things for the right reasons. It's no excuse to bad driving, but it needs bearing in mind this isn't a deliberate close pass, or someone oblivious. Worth reporting? Yes, I can see that. They won't be losing their job or their driving grade over it* but it wouldn't hurt for a bit of review and reflection. Worth posting on YouTube? That's the one I'm not so sure of. I get the normal reasons - unlike many, I think highlighting the many issues from bad driving, that in reality would never see a court yet still needs addressing is not a bad thing, and am in favour of helmet cams. In this case though, you have an identified route to complain that will identify the driver, and will undoubtedly have corrective action taken, so I'd have made the report but left it off public viewing.


*assuming a relatively complaint and accident free history of course!


----------



## GrasB (10 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> He was a minor misjudgement away from a collision and it's all okay?


To expand on this. At that speed the driver was a minor misjudgement away from a incident which would have prevented them from attending what ever emergency the driver had been called to & even worse may well have required someone emergency services to attend their incident. However, at half that speed even a heavy kerb impact would have been unlikely to do any significant damage to the vehicle, it also wouldn't have left the OP unsettled.


----------



## benb (10 Nov 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> My final word would be this. He is someone doing the wrong things for the right reasons. It's no excuse to bad driving, but it needs bearing in mind *this isn't a deliberate close pass, or someone oblivious*. Worth reporting? Yes, I can see that. They won't be losing their job or their driving grade over it* but it wouldn't hurt for a bit of review and reflection. Worth posting on YouTube? That's the one I'm not so sure of. I get the normal reasons - unlike many, I think highlighting the many issues from bad driving, that in reality would never see a court yet still needs addressing is not a bad thing, and am in favour of helmet cams. In this case though, you have an identified route to complain that will identify the driver, and will undoubtedly have corrective action taken, so I'd have made the report but left it off public viewing.



I completely agree with the bold part.
The driver isn't publicly identifiable from this, so I don't see anything particularly wrong with publishing it. IMO.


----------



## CopperCyclist (10 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> I completely agree with the bold part.
> The driver isn't publicly identifiable from this, so I don't see anything particularly wrong with publishing it. IMO.



I didn't say there was, nor that you shouldn't - just said I wouldn't


----------



## benb (10 Nov 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> I didn't say there was, nor that you shouldn't - just said I wouldn't



Yeah, I wasn't saying you were wrong, just telling you why I didn't see a problem with it.


----------



## Lemond (10 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> He was a minor misjudgement away from a collision and it's all okay?



Thank goodness his judgement was spot on then.


----------



## User6179 (10 Nov 2014)

Lemond said:


> Thank goodness his judgement was spot on then.



Outcome Bias !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias


----------



## benb (11 Nov 2014)

Lemond said:


> Thank goodness his judgement was spot on then.



You're talking crap. You seem to be saying any close pass is by definition OK as long as no contact was made.
Which is obviously drivel.


----------



## GrasB (11 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> You're talking crap. You seem to be saying any close pass is by definition OK as long as no contact was made.
> Which is obviously drivel.


Actually I think he's talking about the near miss on the pedestrian refuge kerb rather than your close pass. But the same thing applies, the fact there wasn't any collision didn't make it okay.


----------



## Lemond (11 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> You're talking crap. You seem to be saying any close pass is by definition OK as long as no contact was made.
> Which is obviously drivel.



No. I'm simply saying that I don't share your opinion that the ambulance was "way too close".


----------



## Lemond (11 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> Actually I think he's talking about the near miss on the pedestrian refuge kerb rather than your close pass. But the same thing applies, the fact there wasn't any collision didn't make it okay.



Also doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with the pass either.


----------



## benb (11 Nov 2014)

Lemond said:


> No. I'm simply saying that I don't share your opinion that the ambulance was "way too close".


Well, as I was there and you weren't, I can safely say you're talking out of your bottom.



Lemond said:


> Also doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with the pass either.


A pass that barely misses a cyclist and/or barely misses a curb/traffic island is wrong, no matter what.


----------



## Scoosh (11 Nov 2014)

*MOD NOTE:*
Agree to disagree and continue the thread. 
Keep on bickering, however ...


----------



## Studley (11 Nov 2014)

The design of the pinch point is the main culprit. Should be cycle friendly in design.


----------



## benb (11 Nov 2014)

Scoosh said:


> *MOD NOTE:*
> Agree to disagree and continue the thread.
> Keep on bickering, however ...



Fair enough. I apologise.


----------



## benb (11 Nov 2014)

Studley said:


> The design of the pinch point is the main culprit. Should be cycle friendly in design.



Well sort of. We all hate pinch points; they are unsatisfactory for everyone, but a driver who barges through regardless of the distance they are then able to give is a dangerous idiot.


----------



## Turbo Rider (11 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> Well sort of. We all hate pinch points; they are unsatisfactory for everyone, but a driver who barges through regardless of the distance they are then able to give is a dangerous idiot.


 
...I find them quite handy from a pedestrian point of view...argumentwise, I'm on the fence - experienced better, experienced worse & if it was too close by legal definition then it was too close...that's about it.


----------



## Studley (11 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> Well sort of. We all hate pinch points; they are unsatisfactory for everyone, but a driver who barges through regardless of the distance they are then able to give is a dangerous idiot.


 
More than sort of, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if pinch points were designed to be cycle friendly. Yes, we may all hate them, apart from pedestrians, but that's no reason to accept them and continue complaining about them. We should be reporting the danger of pinch points to our council, not try to apportion blame on a cyclist or driver when both make errors of judgement in a given situation when we don't have the full story to make judgement on.


----------



## benb (11 Nov 2014)

Turbo Rider said:


> ...I find them quite handy from a pedestrian point of view...argumentwise, I'm on the fence - experienced better, experienced worse & if it was too close by legal definition then it was too close...that's about it.



As a pedestrian I'd much rather have a proper crossing; light controlled or zebra.


----------



## Turbo Rider (11 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> As a pedestrian I'd much rather have a proper crossing; light controlled or zebra.


 
I wouldn't. I find drivers and cyclists to be willfully ignorant of Zebra's, so its easy to get that false sense of security about them....the lights, I find annoying as I don't like waiting around for a light to come on, only for the traffic to dissappear, though I can obviously see their benefit to the rest of mankind. Each to his own though...


----------



## GrasB (11 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> Well sort of. We all hate pinch points; they are unsatisfactory for everyone, but a driver who barges through regardless of the distance they are then able to give is a dangerous idiot.


The pedestrian island I deal with in Italy are much nicer, but they also take up a lot more space as the road designers keep the lane width the same them & create a gap between the lanes to do this. It's not just a few meters in front, the blend can be over 30m in each direction. Shame we don't have as much thought put into these as can be found in continental Europe.


----------



## gambatte (11 Nov 2014)

Maybe, one problem with pedestrian islands is... they’re too small?
If a cyclist in a decent secondary can inadvertently allow a pass... maybe they need a smaller maximum lane width? Standard being a width that requires some level of driver attention to negotiate at 30mph with a clear road?
Increase the island, decrease the lane width.


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 Nov 2014)

gambatte said:


> Maybe, one problem with pedestrian islands is... they’re too small?
> If a cyclist in a decent secondary can inadvertently allow a pass... maybe they need a smaller maximum lane width? *Standard being a width that requires some level of driver attention to negotiate at 30mph with a clear road?*
> Increase the island, decrease the lane width.


 
But then the buses wouldn't fit through. 

I see your point though.


----------



## gambatte (11 Nov 2014)

I reckon if it was wide enough for a bus/hgv then a cyclist in secondary would stop all but the most idiotic passes.
You’ll still get idiot drivers.
When I started (and inexperience found me cycling too close to the kerb) I was cycling along a local high street that’s largely pedestrianised. The bit where traffic’s allowed is a narrow, single lane, one way road with high kerbs.
I was passed at speed by an idiot in a Xantia estate.....


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 Nov 2014)

gambatte said:


> I reckon if it was wide enough for a bus/hgv then a cyclist in secondary would stop all but the most idiotic passes.


It would also mean that it would be much clearer to drivers why we've taken primary.


----------



## GrasB (12 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> A pass that barely misses a cyclist and/or barely misses a curb/traffic island is wrong, no matter what.


Especially when it's at speed.


----------



## GrasB (12 Nov 2014)

Trikeman said:


> It would also mean that it would be much clearer to drivers why we've taken primary.


There are a few tighter pinch points I go through, these are generally the worst for drivers trying to dive in front of you because they realise that even if they 'push' you to the side there still isn't room!

The main problem is the effective lane width is reduced. A much better idea would be to maintain or even *increase* lane width to allow for a larger margin of error.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> There are a few tighter pinch points I go through, these are generally the worst for drivers trying to dive in front of you because they realise that even if they 'push' you to the side there still isn't room!


Hmm, I find the opposite. With narrow pinch-points, I signal right and take primary beforehand, and it's then obvious why I've done it when I enter the point. Afterwards, I signal left and move back to secondary.


----------



## gambatte (12 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> The main problem is the effective lane width is reduced. A much better idea would be to maintain or even *increase* lane width to allow for a larger margin of error.


Most of these are fitted to existing roads? Increasing lane width would
1 increase the distance pedestrians have to cross
2 decrease the size of the ped island
Kind of defeats their purpose?
I’ve found the larger lane widths are the ones where I’ve had most ‘dodgy’ passes.
On narrower, busy roads, I’ve found by taking the lane early I’ve fewer problems. The only one I’ve had a couple of times has been the sudden screech and smell of burning rubber as a late passing idiot realises their current speed and direction is going to take them onto the island, through the bollard....


----------



## GrasB (12 Nov 2014)

gambatte said:


> Most of these are fitted to existing roads? Increasing lane width would
> 1 increase the distance pedestrians have to cross
> 2 decrease the size of the ped island
> Kind of defeats their purpose?


1 is irrelevant as you still only have a single lane of traffic to cross.
2 isn't a consequence of increasing the lane width.



> I’ve found the larger lane widths are the ones where I’ve had most ‘dodgy’ passes.
> On narrower, busy roads, I’ve found by taking the lane early I’ve fewer problems. The only one I’ve had a couple of times has been the sudden screech and smell of burning rubber as a late passing idiot realises their current speed and direction is going to take them onto the island, through the bollard....


It's not when they screech to a halt that you have a problem, it's when they charge through the gap regardless! At this point the narrower the gap the more danger you're in as your options are reduced & the margin of error is much lower. If you hold a decent road position at wider pinch points most people are discouraged from doing silly things anyway.


----------



## gambatte (12 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> 1 is irrelevant as you still only have a single lane of traffic to cross.
> 2 isn't a consequence of increasing the lane width.
> .


1 - not irrelevant, it's a wider lane. Lane width counts. Especially if you've young kids, prams etc.
2 - on a existing road, if you increase the lane width, the island would have to get narrower, the roads a fixed width - it's not like they're going to reduce the width of the pavement?. 
There's probably a guideline minimum width, but as I was told when I complained they were marking cycle lanes well below minimum width recomendations "they're only guidelines"...


----------



## GrasB (12 Nov 2014)

gambatte said:


> 1 - not irrelevant, it's a wider lane. Lane width counts. Especially if you've young kids, prams etc.


If we accommodate large vehicles, then the minimum lane width is 2.6m (2.6m being the maximum allowable width of a vehicle excluding mirrors). Assuming a 2m train (parent + buggy) that'll take about 7s to cross at 1.5mph (I walk at 4-4.5mph on the flat). If we increase the road width to 4.5m (3.65m is the width of a standard motorway lane) then the time taken to cross increases to 9.5s. In the grand scheme of things it's a negligible difference for crossing time. 

However we look at this from a cyclist being squeezed point of view there's a huge difference. My big car is wide in the grand scheme of things, total wing to wing width being 2.03m wide (2.146m mirror to mirror), at 2.6m lane width as a cyclist I have a maximum of 0.5m to survive in if someone try to push through regardless. But the reality is the driver will be about 20-30cm from the kerb naturally so it's a real survival space problem. Now go to a 3.5m lane. With a 0.25m kerb clearance for the car & cyclist you've got about 0.7m space for the car to pass, that's not going to be safe in the slightest considering any slight wobble from either will likely result in a collision. At 4.5m I've got 0.6m to the kerb, the driver has the same & there's still 1.1m of survival space for me. Comfortable, no, but reasonably safe.



> 2 - on a existing road, if you increase the lane width, the island would have to get narrower, the roads a fixed width - it's not like they're going to reduce the width of the pavement?.


Depending on the situation why not? If the road won't support narrowing of a pavement or allow for a decent lane width a central refuge is probably the wrong answer anyway.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> If we accommodate large vehicles, then the minimum lane width is 2.6m (2.6m being the maximum allowable width of a vehicle excluding mirrors). Assuming a 2m train (parent + buggy) that'll take about 7s to cross at 1.5mph (I walk at 4-4.5mph on the flat). If we increase the road width to 4.5m (3.65m is the width of a standard motorway lane) then the time taken to cross increases to 9.5s. In the grand scheme of things it's a negligible difference for crossing time.
> .



In that time (2.5s) a car travelling at 30mph would have covered 100ft. That makes a massive difference when trying to cross the road.


----------



## GrasB (12 Nov 2014)

400bhp said:


> In that time (2.5s) a car travelling at 30mph would have covered 100ft. That makes a massive difference when trying to cross the road.


If you need a pedestrian refuge then the road is busy enough that you're going to require a car to slow down to avoid you. So the actual distance away the car is to make a safe crossing is exactly the same. This is what happens here, here & here


----------



## 400bhp (12 Nov 2014)

WTF are you on about.


----------



## Turbo Rider (12 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> Depending on the situation why not? If the road won't support narrowing of a pavement or allow for a decent lane width a central refuge is probably the wrong answer anyway.



Because if you do narrow the pavement, it then becomes unsafe to walk on without falling into the road and, sometimes, these central refuges are put in places where it's common practice for people to get run over, so as well as it might be the wrong answer, it might also be the only answer.


----------



## GrasB (13 Nov 2014)

Turbo Rider said:


> Because if you do narrow the pavement it then becomes unsafe to walk on without falling into the road and, sometimes


So we make it dangerous for road users instead? Great idea!


> these central refuges are put in places where it's common practice for people to get run over, so as well as it might be the wrong answer, it might also be the only answer.


So the only thing in the road designer has when it comes to protecting pedestrians is a central refuge?


----------



## GrasB (13 Nov 2014)

400bhp said:


> WTF are you on about.


Explaining why your 100ft at 30mph is irreverent.


----------



## Turbo Rider (13 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> So we make it dangerous for road users instead? Great idea!
> 
> So the only thing in the road designer has when it comes to protecting pedestrians is a central refuge?


 
Pedestrian deaths have no doubt reduced as an outcome, so yes, it probably is a great idea. Road users are supposed to be aware of what's in front of them and if making a little island for someone to walk onto while there's only traffic coming from one direction (not the band...that would be horrible) helps the pedestrian to cross the road without inconveniencing the oncoming traffic, thus reducing the chance of the oncoming traffic plowing into them, then it's a marvelous idea. There's also the question of what you replace these islands with if you take them away...because the reality is either more zebra crossings / light crossings, which would then slow / halt traffic, or take them away completely and incurr more pedestrian deaths...because as nice as it is to imagine that people should and will only use a zebra / light crossing, people can be completely f*cking stupid at times.


----------



## hoski (13 Nov 2014)

Turbo Rider said:


> ...because as nice as it is to imagine that people should and will only use a zebra / light crossing, people can be completely f*cking stupid at times.


It's stupid to not use crossings?


----------



## Turbo Rider (13 Nov 2014)

hoski said:


> It's stupid to not use crossings?



Depends on the situation really, but no. What I mean is that sometimes, people have been known to cross at dangerous places in the road, like blind bends, where they can't see any oncoming traffic. IMO this is slightly silly. Because of this, they sometimes get squashed. Because of this, little islands AKA pinch points have been built and these help save lives of people who might cross there anyway.


----------

