Got knocked off

[glueman]

The way you phrase it "independently deciding not to give way" makes it sound like the rider should be bound by the actions of drivers (he isn't) and that they somehow have a responsibility to do anything nice for any traffic -other cyclists included- waiting on a minor road (he doesn't).

There are at least two things going on here IMO. The rider had an inadequate front light. If I freewheel down that bit of road I'll typically be going at around 18mph and this guy was pedalling for all he was worth so 30mph may have been nearer the mark when he passed the front of the car.
If he was going that quickly a slow pulsing front light meant he was travelling a considerable distance effectively unlit. I could have honestly said 'I didn't see you and was looking in exactly the place you occupied' because nothing about his clothing was adapted to being seen and his illumination was intermittent.

So far as a cyclist being bound by the actions of other road users, in effect that's precisely what happens. Some cyclists (though by no means a majority) see the single track nature of their vehicle as a reason to ignore common sense behaviour. If a line of cars slows from 30mph to almost zero an intelligent rider will assume there is a good reason for it and moderate their speed or at least cover their brakes. This isn't a discussion about whether a cyclist should filter but what is appropriate behaviour around road junctions.

My personal belief is such cyclists are extremely reluctant to forgo speed and momentum to the point of foolhardiness. They're effectively abandoning interactive road skills to keep the bike rolling as fast as possible. Denying even the possibility that other people may be manoeuvering in response to one another sounds like the driver who knocks down the child who steps into the road and says 'well he should have been on the pavement'. Real world riding is about having antennae tuned to the whole of the traffic, not existing in an hermetically sealed cocoon of certainty and physical endeavour.

[lindow_man]

...

Recently I cycled up to a busy crossroads to turn right, and an oncoming car driver decided to be considerate and stopped, waving me through in front of him. But the car behind (him), not having seen me and unsure why the car in front had stopped, overtook the stopped car and would have run me over if I hadn't dashed into my right turn. A considerate driver's well-intentioned but foolish actions could have triggered an accident. I see this sort of thing quite frequently.

.

I find that this sort of thing happens a lot, and in most cases it's absolutely stupid. Drivers stop and wave you across against the right of way when there is absolutely no reason to do so - it often puts you in a potentially dangerous position and usually ends up delaying everyone involved - yet the driver actually thinks they are being helpful, polite, nice, and an all-round good person. There can be occasional situations in very heavy traffic when it can be helpful, but in my experience these are few and far between. How can we get the message across that complying with the rules for right of way is the best way to keep everyone safe?

[EdinburghFixed]

Yep, I deliberately set aside the light issue because I think anyone who rides (effectively) unlit in traffic can expect nothing but trouble - and I don't think drivers, other cyclists or pedestrians should really be made to take on the unfair burden of looking out for such riders.

So I completely agree with you on the light front.

You've chosen an odd example at the end though. If as a pedestrian I jump in front of a bus, would you blame the bus driver? Most people would agree that while pedestrians should be protected from i.e. dangerous driving, they do bear responsibility for their own actions.

It's hard to discuss this particular example because of course, we only have your memory of it to go by.

But suppose you were riding along quite content at 20mph. Traffic is overtaking you but then suddenly starts to brake (as usual). The car alongside you flashes someone out.

In this scenario I would not slam on the anchors, although I would probably start braking - my default option would be to try and use my speed to get past before the 'at fault' driver pulled into my path. If I had a helmet light, this is one situation where I would try to laser the target driver into holding place.

[glueman]

I can only stress I'm not an opportunistic, risk taking type when I'm driving. If someone flashes or waves I don't see it as a safe invitation to pull out. I do look and look again, and most likely again and again before moving.
In this instance a car to my right had slowed and slowed some more until it held up the line of vehicles precisely because I didn't pull out immediately. None of the following cars had any difficulty in seeing what the car giving way was trying to do, there was no sudden overtaking, squeal of brakes, smoking tyres or sounding of horns from behind him. The cyclist for his part had nevertheless adopted an attitude of nothing to do with me mate and kept going regardless in spite of all signs that vehicles were about to move across his line and with really crappy lights.
It was either belligerence on his part, stupidity or he was away with the fairies. Fortunately for him I wasn't.

I used the child in the road as an example of what can and does happen and can be ameliorated by riding/driving well within speed limits and sightlines and not expecting the best outcome from situations but anticipating the unexpected.

[EdinburghFixed]

In this instance a car to my right had slowed and slowed some more until it held up the line of vehicles precisely because I didn't pull out immediately. None of the following cars had any difficulty in seeing what the car giving way was trying to do, there was no sudden overtaking, squeal of brakes, smoking tyres or sounding of horns from behind him. The cyclist for his part had nevertheless adopted an attitude of nothing to do with me mate and kept going regardless in spite of all signs that vehicles were about to move across his line

The problem is, the car which slowed was acting against the rules (unless somewhere in the Highway Code, it says "slow down on major routes at your discretion, to let cars on minor roads join. It's ok to hold up a line of vehicles to do this").

If there was no need for the cyclist to stop other than the decision of one of the drivers to let other traffic join, then you are basically complaining at his lack of courtesy, which is fine.

However, it doesn't make his riding irresponsible or 'bad' in an objective sense. He has the right to ride along the road and the drivers on that road (or on side roads), *don't* have the right to decide on his behalf that he must stop and give up his right of way. We don't ride at the discretion of motorists, after all.

You say it's fortunate for him that you didn't ignore his right of way, and unfortunately that's true - because we're always vulnerable to cars and not the other way around. For that reason I try to be more prudent than the rider in this example, but not because I feel its stupid or belligerent to proceed when I have right of way.

Sorry for the ramble! This is a pet peeve of mine

I should also say that I'm not getting at you! Unlike many motorists I see, you didn't just pull out into him

[paulah]

Got knocked off for first time last night. I'm okay just a bit bruised and stiff.Any idea of how I can avoid this again in the future? Maybe a strip of lights up and down each side of me like a xmas tree?

We were discussing something like this a couple of weeks ago - basically motorists are looking for car and lorry shaped objects and don't see what they aren't looking for (cyclists and motorcyclists). Motorcyclists are taught to weave when approaching a junction where a car's waiting and this helps to make them visible. This is a bit more difficult on a slower moving cycle, but the suggestion to wobble the handlebars should have similar result, and so would moving your body. Could also try waving, they'll probably wonder what on earth's going on, but who cares?

[glueman]

I disagree. None of the other vehicles behaved inappropriately, attempted to overtake or pass the slowing car. The cyclist did by virtue of believing he was immune from the usual courtesies as he was a) narrow enough that he might get away with it, b) self-propelled and slowing would be a hassle.

It's a pet peeve of mine that when there's so much inconsiderate, not to mention downright dangerous driving around, cyclists see fit to absolve themselves and their fellow riders from stupid behaviour.
Taking absolutist judgements of the 'I'm in the right' variety once changing events begin to play themselves out will lead to collisions from which the rider will suffer most. Your average white van man would have edged into the traffic and woe betide the righteous. If you're going to ride in a way that takes no account of any other road user at least get some decent lights and ride at a speed where you won't get creamed if you misjudge the outcome.
Anyone who rides with cameras for the sole purpose of catching the infringements of other road users and isn't an officer of the law is IMO, paranoid.

[pigman]

Anyone who rides with cameras for the sole purpose of catching the infringements of other road users and isn't an officer of the law is IMO, paranoid.

or hasnt got enough going on in their life.
Its a very negative approach to sharing the world with others, be they wrong or not.

[EdinburghFixed]

None of the other vehicles behaved inappropriately, attempted to overtake or pass the slowing car. The cyclist did by virtue of believing he was immune from the usual courtesies as he was a) narrow enough that he might get away with it, b) self-propelled and slowing would be a hassle.

Strangely, you seem to be arguing that it's inappropriate for a cyclist not to let you out. He has right of way over you, even if a car in front of him slows down or stops!

On the face of it, the cyclist was quite within his rights to use the road as he did, however much we agree that it would have been polite, and certainly safer, for him to stop. (And I do agree on both of these points).

If we follow your reasoning through, and drivers learn to pull out when flashed in the assumption that cyclists will also stop, what happens when an inattentive driver who is *following* a cyclist flashes someone out? Should the cyclist stop because someone *behind* him has flashed? Where does the blame lie if they do stop, and are shunted from behind, or if they don't stop and are hit by the "at fault" driver?

Alternatively, flip it on its head and imagine what would happen if as a cyclist, I flashed you out. It's easy to imagine all sorts of collisions happening with cars overtaking the waiting cyclist.

Unfortunately motorists lack the imagination - and / or the awareness - and often flash each other out even when this places a burden on cyclists in the traffic flow around them. As we have seen here, a motorist flashed you out which meant the cyclist either had to stop (potentially an emergency stop with corresponding loss of control) or shoot past. What if it was icy, etc. etc.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all on this particular incident - on the face of it your criticisms of the mystery rider are pretty valid. But I think on the general point, you're wrong.

[EdinburghFixed]

Anyone who rides with cameras for the sole purpose of catching the infringements of other road users and isn't an officer of the law is IMO, paranoid.

Perhaps

I was the victim of a hit-and-run this year - a car waiting to turn right that saw a gap and drove straight through me! I was left lying in the middle of a box junction as the driver roared off, with hardly any idea what colour car it was, never mind anything else - but with a camera to look back at, the plates and the driver's face would have been clearly visible. Instead I was left to make good the damage, have my injuries seen to, get back to work and he probably did the same thing to another cyclist on the way home

To take this example, a driver was flashed out and hit a cyclist, it would be an open and shut claim with video evidence, otherwise there is months of wrangling by the insurers trying to minimise their losses at your expense. ("The driver said you swerved and he couldn't avoid you" is a typical one - try disproving that!)

I see more and more people with cameras and I don't have a problem with it, any more than the rise of average speed cameras or whatever.

After all, the main person on a video is the cyclist themselves!

[james01]

There are several makes of dashboard mounting cameras available, so I assume more & more motorists are driving around & recording everything. So maybe we should all be filming each other all the time

[glueman]

I'm sure drivers flash other motorists with bikes in front of them all the time, it's incumbent on the person pulling out to ensure it's safe to do so. Where I believe the rider to be in error is in adopting the attitude that what the rest of the traffic does is nothing to do with him, it's a fundamentally flawed and indeed dangerous position for vulnerable road users to adopt and ultimately alienates drivers from empathising with cyclists' position.

The rider passed a number of cars (5? 20?) from the point at which it was clear the lead car was going to give way at high speed in a narrow space with dodgy lights because he didn't think he needed to bother. It's exactly the kind of attitude that sees lights jumped at red, cyclists take to the pavements and the rest of the stuff that I become involuntarily associated with when I ride my bike.

[EdinburghFixed]

Funnily enough (although we are slipping off-topic here), I have snapped the helmet cam onto the sun visor for the drive to work. Why not? It takes 10 seconds to attach and if nothing happens, I just format the card at the end of the day (another 10 seconds).

It might capture some malingering pavement cyclists!

I'm sure drivers flash other motorists with bikes in front of them all the time, it's incumbent on the person pulling out to ensure it's safe to do so. Where I believe the rider to be in error is in adopting the attitude that what the rest of the traffic does is nothing to do with him, it's a fundamentally flawed and indeed dangerous position for vulnerable road users to adopt and ultimately alienates drivers from empathising with cyclists' position.

The rider passed a number of cars (5? 20?) from the point at which it was clear the lead car was going to give way at high speed in a narrow space with dodgy lights because he didn't think he needed to bother. It's exactly the kind of attitude that sees lights jumped at red, cyclists take to the pavements and the rest of the stuff that I become involuntarily associated with when I ride my bike.

I basically agree with all of this.

[glueman]

There are several makes of dashboard mounting cameras available, so I assume more & more motorists are driving around & recording everything. So maybe we should all be filming each other all the time

Quite. Mobility as guilt. Curtain twitching with a technological edge.

[thirdcrank]

I see that some versions of the latest BMW 7 series have a thermal imager to identify the presence of pedestrians in the dark - presumably that would also identify a cyclist. They also have sideways-pointing wing-mounted cameras. Not clear about the purpose of these - some reviews suggest they are to assist with parking, one said it was so that the driver could see what was approaching on either side at a junction. I don't know anything more than that about either bit of equipment so I'll keep an open mind. Of course, the BMW 7 series starts at something like 80 grand so with a few extras like metallic paint and go faster stripes there'll be little change out of 100K. It may be, therefore, that with the so-called downturn, we may not see much of this on the road.

On the other hand, when reversing sensors were introduced, they were something like the price of a small car as an extra on a Beamer. Now they are 50 quid fitted at Halfords.