Cycling UK Forum

jatindersangha wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:If I had gone through a run of a few accidents or incidents with motorists then at some point I'd consider what I could change to stop the run. Whether that's a cycle training course, changing my route, changing my travel time, changing my riding style, etc. I can't change motorists but I can make myself better as a cyclist and road user. I am not criticizing the OP just making the point that we can all become better cyclists.

Yes, I agree and have done the same...I did the Bikeability level 3 course, and when I was commuting to Woking train station I restricted my route to the quieter back roads...all of which were narrow, windy, 40/50/60mph limits. Most days, I'd only be passed by a handful of motorists - but that in itself wasn't enough to remove the close-passes etc.

--Jatinder

You probably can't do more.

I hope you didn't take my post as victim blaming. I do dislike that phrase because it's often used to shutdown discussions on personal actions that could help prevent future accidents and incidents. It's why I try to be very careful in my phrasing. I'm into self reflection as I can't improve others but I can possibly improve myself. It seems you've done that self reflection and taken action through training. It is a continuous process and if there's ever another incident, let's hope not, then you might spot another action you can take. I wish you well in your cycling and hope you can get back any confidence this incident might have caused you to lose.

Jdsk wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vye7Y-y50G0
I can't tell because I can't see if the road narrows at the junction or if there are other hazards.

Jonathan

It's a staggered junction - with the "straight-on" road being a few feet to the left. So, when I cycled that route I always took primary at the junction as I really didn't want motorists passing me whilst turning or veering left.

What the video doesn't show is the parked car in the cycle lane hence I was out into the road at the beginning of the video...as the junction was only a few seconds ahead and I needed to be in primary for it - I didn't see the need to pull in.

Tangled Metal wrote:I hope you didn't take my post as victim blaming.

We're all friends here even if we disagree at times


I've posted the 2mins before and after the incident with the blue Golf - it should show my usual road position. I see that I do veer out around drains etc and perhaps ride too far out when there's no traffic behind me. It's not particularly interesting.

https://youtu.be/nnjEZTpxE7I

--Jatinder

Edit: PS: If someone would like to post their own video showing their positioning then I'd be very interested.

jatindersangha wrote:

Jdsk wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vye7Y-y50G0
I can't tell because I can't see if the road narrows at the junction or if there are other hazards.

It's a staggered junction - with the "straight-on" road being a few feet to the left. So, when I cycled that route I always took primary at the junction as I really didn't want motorists passing me whilst turning or veering left.

What the video doesn't show is the parked car in the cycle lane hence I was out into the road at the beginning of the video...as the junction was only a few seconds ahead and I needed to be in primary for it - I didn't see the need to pull in.

Thanks. As suspected.

Jonathan

Here's the junction:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.51359 ... 384!8i8192

--Jatinder

Ride in the gutter and you will get treated like something in the gutter, nothing wrong with the riders road position. In fact I would have taken a wider line coming into that junction, with the blue pug waiting to emerge and a car coming the other way I would have blocked the path of the VW - it was a classic error from the driver, he panicked at being held up by a cyclist and went for the over-take in the face of on-coming traffic, he timed it badly and had to cut the cyclist up. He absolutely deserves the 3 points.

You need to be either in the way or completely out of the way, any compromise and crap drivers will force their way through.


As for the lorry video, he went for the pass, realised he couldn't make it, braked and was going to fall in behind you, may be not the best of driving but equally he was not going to cut you up and endanger you.

Haven't seen the lorry video (I don't think so anyway) but on watching this one I can't agree that the op was too far out. He/she doesn't take the lane until passing the pug and moves back in again.
That's how it should be done. It should force an overtaking driver to move into the next lane as they would if overtaking another 4+ wheeled vehicle for the simple reason that if the cyclist they are overtaking falls to their right, they get squished...potentially.

PDQ Mobile wrote:The OP is right in the middle of the lane at the junction. And he is very far out at the start of the video.
If the carriageway is 3 meters wide that's a meter and a half and it's over any recommended distance.

I really recommend that you (and others who are taking the auto-supremacist line that the OP should have cowered in the gutter) enrol yourself on a level 2 bikability course to learn about road positioning. I really cannot see any fault in the OPs position - if anything I wouid have ridden further out.

If the lane is 3m wide then that is clearly not enough for anyone to overtake in the face of oncoming traffic. Most drivers understand this so wouldn't attempt to overtake whatever position you adopted. However , if hug the kerb a few will see the car + 20cm gap between you and the centre line as an invitation to overtake. In these circumstance it is wise to ride in primary to make it clear to following drivers that they need to change lanes to overtake, rather than attempt to squeeze past. By riding close to the edge you are effectively signalling to following drivers that you are happy to share the lane.

The example the OP posted wasn't really a close pass. The driver did cross the lane markings to overtake (which they might not have done if the OP had been close to the kerb )- the problem was they underestimated the distance they needed to cover, so cut up the OP before fully completing the manoeuvre.

Cowsham wrote:

Jdsk wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOB538zCr_M
looks a bit high to start with, but it's difficult without cameras pointing both ways. And by the time of the offence it looks like an appropriate control position.

What's a control position? The cyclist is in the middle of the lane does that mean he's in control ? -- bloody aggressive bugor that's all. Good job the truck driver wasn't big and equally as aggressive.

I'm not sure if the question is rhetorical, and if not whether it has been answered in the subsequent discussion...

Jonathan

jatindersangha wrote:Hi all,

I recently reported this vehicle for a dangerous close pass:

Video: https://youtu.be/JZYzK1gZRlM

The Surrey TPU investigated and offered the driver a driver awareness course in lieu of 3 points/prosecution etc. ...

(My emphasis)

There's a debate to be had about court diversion policies like this, but it's pretty much the norm nowadays. Let's remember that if the suspect declines this option, the alternative is a prosecution file to the CPS.

In short, the OP has reported bad driving to the police using video evidence and got a result. Instead of general rejoicing at one small step for a cyclist etc.... he's subjected to advice on his riding style.

thirdcrank wrote:
In short, the OP has reported bad driving to the police using video evidence and got a result. Instead of general rejoicing at one small step for a cyclist etc.... he's subjected to advice on his riding style.

Why not?
I am not "subjecting" him, merely stating what I perceive to be why he has had so many issues.
Trying to be a little helpful, save us all some grief.
Why do you think he has had so many problems?
Is Surrey worse than elsewhere?
It is possible!!

IMV the video shows a fairly normal piece of poor judgement that one sees (but does not film) every day on the public road.

The car approaches slowly and cautiously giving room, sees the oncoming and the waiting cars, and makes an error.
As Jonathan says the pass itself was not close, just the cut in.
Fairly close passes happen all the time on such roads anyway.
(There is a point at which I become unhappy. It varies with speed differential and road conditions.
In tight slow straight places I am happier to be passed somewhat closer.)

The advice from Bikeability etc to ALWAYS cycle a meter out seems to me to be a counterproductive safety instrument in many circumstances.
A safe and comfortable distance from the kerb avoiding drain covers is my preferred option on many roads. Perhaps around half a meter out, it's not set in stone but adaptable.
And not "in the gutter" I might add.
A cycle width out perhaps- a place to go when things are uncomfortable.

The OP has stated he has done such a cycling course and following it to the letter has now led him into several conflict situations.
The bad "in swerve" of the driver here is typical of the misjudgment.
The meter and a half of road INSIDE the cyclist ( for he is more than a meter out at times) is a deal of wasted space on a tight road and has pushed the driver the same amount over into the oncoming carriageway.
Unnecessarily IMV.
And the longer distance thus travelled may have affected the outcome.


Others see it as a safety promoting position but the OP's experiences would seem to show otherwise?

The OP posted because the police wouldn't provide the driver's details.
Not because of the offence.
The OP wants to make a claim from the driver's insurance for the consequences of the "psychological damage" from the incident.
I think that might be enough said.

PDQ Mobile wrote:As Jonathan says the pass itself was not close, just the cut in.

I don't think that was me...

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote:

PDQ Mobile wrote:As Jonathan says the pass itself was not close, just the cut in.

I don't think that was me...

Jonathan

Sorry, was Pete Owens.

PDQ Mobile wrote: ...
Why not?
( .... )
The OP posted because the police wouldn't provide the driver's details.
Not because of the offence.
The OP wants to make a claim from the driver's insurance for the consequences of the "psychological damage" from the incident.
I think that might be enough said.

I understand the reason he posted and did my best to answer his query.

As to people adding their own threepenn'orth, I'm all for it; it's something I tend to do a lot myself.

Advice such as yours is a valuable reminder to people who grumble about the authorities for being slow to prosecute and about magistrates/ juries being reluctant to convict when they do prosecute, that even among cyclists there's a broad range of opinions about a rider's position on the road.

Any way IMO, the OP is more of a cyclists' champion than some who assume the mantle.

Hi all,

I'm all up for healthy debate.

I sense that perhaps I should have made it clear that the video posted was in slow motion, it's 25% of the real speed.

In the office atm so I'll post the full speed video tonight.

Thanks,
--Jatinder

thirdcrank wrote:Instead of general rejoicing at one small step for a cyclist etc.... he's subjected to advice on his riding style.

I think such videos and the discussion they generate on a forum like this serve a valuable purpose. As is so often the case, not everyone agrees about whether an action is correct, let alone what is the best course of action. It's useful to be able to read others' opinions, their reasons for them, and the links to official published guidance etc.

Cycling is an inherently solitary activity, and we all tend to rely very much on our own judgement developed over years of riding of what is best/safest, as opposed say to learning by copying/osmosis from riding in the company of much better cyclists. Videos are an interesting and valuable opportunity to compare how we ride with other people, and may cause some of us to re-consider our assumptions and change our own practices. So all credit to the OP for posting the videos and providing the subject and opportunity for a bit of discussion.

I don't agree overall with PDQ Mobile's assessment of the video in the OP. In particular to focus on the road position at the junction immediately after the close pass is flawed, since it's quite understandable that someone might swerve in or out a bit after getting a fright. As I said, I would ride closer in judging by the zig zag lines, but secondary position is a zone not a line, and I think that sometimes when the OP is at the right of the zone, I would be at the left of it.

One of my reasons for my choice is that I want it to be obvious to a driver behind me that I am deliberately blocking them when I move from secondary to primary: they may not like it, but the key thing is that they realise I am doing it (and I hope then be patient and wait till I have moved back to secondary before attempting an overtake). If it's not clear to them whether I am in secondary or primary, and I have been riding continuously in that line for some time, they may be more inclined to think I don't know what I am doing, and attempt an overtake when they shouldn't.

I think PDQ Mobile is right to highlight the danger of following the guidelines in Bikeability to the letter. The key thing is to understand the purpose of the guidelines and how they work. As I said, primary was the wrong choice for the approach to the staggered town centre junction, because the other side of the road was empty, rendering primary useless as a way of blocking traffic behind, and instead it increased the risk to the OP.

The guidelines in Bikeability are a starting point for developing roadcraft, which is what the OP is doing every day he rides and by getting second opinions on here (and deciding for himself whether those second opinions contain any advice that is relevant to him/worth following).

On that note, I'll offer the OP what would have been my own personal approach to the Warburtons lorry. If that had been me, commuting on a regular route where I knew the bend with a hill and a brick wall was ahead, when I heard/saw the lorry behind me and realised the lorry would reach me at the hill, I would have eased off or even stopped, in order to ensure that the lorry overtook me before the bend. I did not suggest it before, because I am aware that it is a very personal risk averse approach, but the OP can make his own choice about whether he might ever want to do likewise.