Jeremy Vine.

[iandg]

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

 

[icowden]

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

In other words this:

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

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

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

 

[newts]

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

 

[mjr]

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

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

 

[mjr]

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

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

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

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

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

The truck driver did nothing wrong.

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

 

[Deleted member 26715]

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

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

 

[icowden]

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

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

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

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

 

[mjr]

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

Then I pray you don't drive!

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

You sort of are excusing the trucker.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PaulSB]

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[mjr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jody]

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

 

[mjr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PK99]

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


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

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


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

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

The recent highway code changes did not change the law.

 

[mjr]

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

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

 

[mjr]

The recent highway code changes did not change the law.

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