Cycling UK Forum

On commute to work this morning, this lorry got a little to close for comfort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9bp5OxA7as&feature=plcp

Is that how you got a sore thumb

You're lucky you were by a junction so you had somewhere to go. Still no excuse for such driving.

Tempted to say you were lucky not to get doored - bo on a second look you weren't in the cycle lane to start with.

The lorry did what we always say drivers will do when faced with an inadequate cycle lane - treat it as a separate lane - and didn't appear to deviate at all.

Not sure it looked that close but then maybe I have become used to traffic passing so close on my usual journeys around Preston.

Not sure it looked that close

If you look at 7 seconds the lorry appears to be two drain widths from the kerb. Not sure that I'd like to be in this small a space between the fence and the lorry....and if riding at least a metre out then you'd be squished.

Of course, the drain was in front of ST, but something the length of a lorry couldn't have moved in by much in the time since passing, thus I assume that ST found himself in a similarly small space..

I'd be on to his employers sharpish

They'll be like "Did he hit you?", "No?", "Then what's your problem?!"

This seems to me to be an outstanding example of what's wrong with cycle lanes: a cyclist is pinned in the danger zone at the side of the carriageway - a zone made even worse in this location by the risk of a car door being opened. Nor is it wide enough to offer safety from an overtaking motor vehicle, especially one as large as that truck. I'm well aware that the Highway Code concedes that farcilities are not compulsory, but try telling that to the driver of a truck like that.

Sorry, I forgot. That's an example of a poor-quality cycle lane, hardly representative of the good cycle lanes the apologists want.

thirdcrank wrote:This seems to me to be an outstanding example of what's wrong with cycle lanes: a cyclist is pinned in the danger zone at the side of the carriageway - a zone made even worse in this location by the risk of a car door being opened. Nor is it wide enough to offer safety from an overtaking motor vehicle, especially one as large as that truck. I'm well aware that the Highway Code concedes that farcilities are not compulsory, but try telling that to the driver of a truck like that.

Sorry, I forgot. That's an example of a poor-quality cycle lane, hardly representative of the good cycle lanes the apologists want.

Yes, a classic example of where the farcility makes life worse. Had the OP been 1M further out he would have got a hard time from drivers because he wasn't using "his lane". Using the lane risks a dooring. A dooring which threw a cyclist in front of an HGV travelling at 30-40mph is likely to be fatal. Lanes like that are criminal.

Si wrote:

Not sure it looked that close

If you look at 7 seconds the lorry appears to be two drain widths from the kerb. Not sure that I'd like to be in this small a space between the fence and the lorry....and if riding at least a metre out then you'd be squished.

Of course, the drain was in front of ST, but something the length of a lorry couldn't have moved in by much in the time since passing, thus I assume that ST found himself in a similarly small space..

Take your point but the fence seemed to be in front of the cyclist as the lorry was filmed passing, I wouldnot want to be in the gap 'tween the fence and the lorry where the kerb obviously reduced the road width, but most of the lorry was past before this and where the road was wider.

Though I would agree that I would not be riding that close in to parked cars on such a road, and would be further out to begin with....

irc wrote: ... Lanes like that are criminal.

I know nothing about the place in question, but the layout is worth analysis - especially in view of the frequent excuse that guideline diagrams are all very well, but in real life, space is limited.

It looks to me as though the effective width of this road has been reduced by build-outs of the footway at junctions. Although I've heard this arrangement justified as a safety measure (giving drivers a better view of the main road they are joining) that hardly applies if the "improved" view is obstructed by the parked vehicles - the main reason for those build-outs, of course.

As I've already said, a lane like that gives nothing to cyclists. It's immeasurably worse than nothing, but it does allow some squalid highway department to proclaim its cycle-friendly credentials.

^ Spot on
I ride a couple sections just like that,I never ride in the cycle lane due to the door zone as others' have said.

The lorry did what we always say drivers will do when faced with an inadequate cycle lane - treat it as a separate lane - and didn't appear to deviate at all.

That's the problem,lanes like that lead motorist to think that if everyone stays in their lane then everyone will be OK.The distance(or lack of it) that they pass vulnerable road users doesn't even enter their heads,of course experienced cyclists are all too aware of the door zone risk and ride accordingly,something motorists just don't understand and and care even less to and with the sort of sentencing handed down to this motorist will they ever care to:- http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/100 ... __95_fine/
We ride in a free for all system of road use where governments both local and national hope that if they paint enough lines people will adhere to them but all the time knowing they won't,and not punishing those that don't.

To use a current cliché, a cyclist riding there is put between a rock and a hard place.

I've watched this many times (thanks to the fact that unusually, all the irrelevant stuff has been edited out). My conclusions, with the proviso that I wasn't there so am guessing, are;

1, There appears to be no oncoming traffic until 3 seconds after the completion of the maneuver so more space could probably have been given.
2, The overtake is not completed prior to entering the crossing Zig Zag zone and whilst in my view no offence has been committed, it would probably be seen as poor judgement by the driver.
3, The cycle lane markings are not a black and white issue to an HGV driver, more room often has to be given due to the extra space taken up by a large vehicle, so in this case irrelevant.
4, It wasn't malicious, just careless and thoughtless (which I know makes no difference to any outcome).

Well worth reporting to the company involved with a constructive tone, their driver needs some education in the needs of vulnerable road users. You might even suggest that the company includes a suitable course in their compulsory Driver CPC training. In my experience, most companies are very positive when approached in a constructive manner. Fortunately, the last 2 times I've had to contact a bus company and a haulage company has been to praise the standard of the drivers.