- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Bromley Common overtake video still (CyclingMikey on YouTube)Video: Motorist speaks of "upset" after helmet camera footage of bad driving posted to YouTube
A driver in South London has spoken of the “upset” he felt after footage of him exchanging words with a cyclist after trying to pass him at a pinch point on the road was posted to YouTube. The driver seemed to have interpreted a signal from to hold back from the rider, who also told road.cc why he takes helmet camera footage and uploads it to the video-sharing site.
Robert Lewis, aged 56, was seeking to overtake a recumbent bike ridden by YouTube user CyclingMikey as the pair headed along Bromley Common on Thursday 20 March.
As the video shows, with a pedestrian island ahead on the road creating a pinch point, the cyclist gestured to the motorist to hold back until it was safe to overtake.
But the motorist seems to have misinterpreted it as a signal to overtake, and afterwards there was an exchange in which he told CyclingMikey that he should be on the cycle path on the adjacent footway.
The driver, 56-year-old Robert Lewis, told This Is Local London: "I didn't sleep very well over the weekend because it really upset me.
"I didn't sleep very well over the weekend because it really upset me.
"I don't really get into confrontations with people on the road. I don't speed, I've never had a parking fine since I started driving in 1975.
"I'm annoyed he's put this thing about me on YouTube.”
Referring to the incident, Mr Lewis said: "He's given me this hand signal and I am thinking he's wanting me to pass.
"He says 'stay away from me' and he says he's going to put the video on YouTube which I think is an infringement of my privacy.
"I think he does normal cyclists a disservice by not using the cycle lanes for safety reasons, but happily using them if traffic impedes his progress," he added.
That final point perhaps reinforces a misconception held by many motorists who believe that cyclists are obliged to use on-road cycle lanes or shared use paths on the footway.
In fact there is no legal requirement to do so, and due to the presence of pedestrians on the footway plus the presence of driveways and side road junctions, it is safer for faster moving cyclists to be on the main carriageway.
CyclingMikey, who in the description to the video points out that besides being a cyclist, he's also an experiencd driver, told road.cc: “I feel bad that he's upset about this incident, but then how does a little embarrassment compare with the fear and danger he caused me?
“It's very dangerous to cyclists for a driver to attempt to overtake at a pinch point, and I have been knocked off by a driver doing something very similar in the past,” as shown in this video.
Since posting that footage in October 2011, he’s since been overtaken by the same taxi on at least two occasions – six months later in April 2012, and again in January 2013 – and was given much more space each time.
Regarding Thursday’s incident, he said: “This section of road is a difficult one for cyclists as most of us are simply travelling too fast for the pavement cycle path, and the lane itself is narrow and has the pedestrian islands.
“I first became aware of the driver whilst watching traffic coming up for an overtake in my mirrors, and I judged that he would attempt to overtake me through the upcoming pedestrian refuge.
“I signalled right, and let there be no mistake, this is a very obvious right signal, not a waving through. I like to think I make super obvious signals, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could mistake a right arm out as waving them through. This was enough to get him to brake and back off.
“I then made a look signal and pointed to the traffic island as we went through it, and then after the traffic island waved him through, essentially doing his overtake planning for him.
“This is when he chose to come alongside and too close to me and offer advice about riding in the cycle lane. Had he instead chosen to overtake as all the other cars did, I doubt I'd have bothered to upload the video.
“I didn't report him to Roadsafe as this is fairly minor, but had I done so I'm reasonably sure they would have written him an educational letter.”
We asked CyclingMikey why he uses cameras to record footage of examples of bad driving – and, it should be said, cycling – he said: “I'm one of thousands of cyclists who use cameras to educate and improve driver and cyclist behaviour.
“As more and more drivers realise that so many of us are filming, they begin to take more care around cyclists generally. It's no different to all the Russian drivers using dashcams, a natural reaction to bad driving and bad justice.
“I have a playlist of repeat ‘customers’ who generally considerably improve their behaviour on the second encounter,” as happened with those taxi videos linked above.
He added: “I can't imagine ever needing to or wanting to use a camera in the Netherlands.”
Last week, we reported how helmet camera footage from cyclist Dave Brennan had led to a Glasgow driver pleading guilty to four charges including dangerous driving.
In its article, This Is Local London has asked motorists who have had what it describes as an “altercation” with CyclingMikey to get in touch with it.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 19 min 20 sec ago
Well, the Canyon Endurace CF7 with 12sp 105 mechanical and much better wheels (DT Swiss Endurance LN) is currently available for £2149 and the...
- Laz 28 min 21 sec ago
I think the best solution would be to automatically charge every driver who hits a cyclist on the road with attempted murder, and plain murder in...
- SimoninSpalding 47 min 6 sec ago
Can definitely relate to this. I got to the age of 38 and was seriously unfit, to the extent that I was laid up in bed with a bad back every other...
- mikewood 48 min 9 sec ago
I think all new housing developments should be forced to do exactly that. They already do the LTN type thing. And cyclists do ride past it, I have!...
- Rendel Harris 53 min 49 sec ago
Have you had your cranks checked under the Shimano recall scheme? I ask because I took Mrs H's 2016 Roubaix into the LBS for the free check on her...
- David9694 1 hour 41 min ago
Car crashes into front of home in Briggs Mead, Wymondham...
- nowasps 1 hour 52 min ago
I've worked my way through a gifted box of these, and the review tallies exactly with my own experience.
- E6toSE3 2 hours 23 min ago
Quite wrong. The really interesting stuff was good goggles for under £80 - my budget and I was previously limited to Tifosi. Had to ask about...
- brooksby 5 hours 27 min ago
"No, it's OK, really", replies cycling.
Add new comment
75 comments
"I've never had a parking fine..."
Good grief.
CM quote "Plan ahead and use some anticipation to drive". This just after " i signaled right to stop some numpty overtaking...." i guess CM didn't turn right. So the traffic never had a clue what CM was doing. How about he stops waving his hands around and gets on down the road. I do find CM and his ilk are looking for a fight. Just as a majority of drivers are OK and don't want to kill anyone, a majority of cyclist can managed to cycle safely without causing an incident.
Its easy to see that MC is a minority and has no thought for other cyclists, the driver his annoys may well be the one who has less patience with another cyclist because of his actions.
Well done
Isn't it about time recumbents were made illegal? They can't be seen in traffic as they are below the bonnet line on today's larger cars. The cars are getting larger to accommodate all the airbags and other safety stuff and here's this idiot doing his best to get killed by one.
So do you struggle to see road markings from the seat of your car? Or do you think cyclists stop existing once you can't see them?
So do you struggle to see road markings from the seat of your car? Or do you think cyclists stop existing once you can't see them?
You are right that cars have been getting larger and larger in recent decades. I would argue that its _that_ that needs to be addressed by the law. For one thing there's not enough space on the roads to accommodate them, and, as you point out, they aren't safe. Ban larger vehicles!
It's his choice if he wants to risk it. Cycling two-abreast, or in pelotons, should be made illegal because that is a hazard to other road users.
And the number of recumbent riders killed or seriously injured on the roads is..?
The point is many cars are too big for our roads, let alone the other vehicles. We should also remember how low down many old classic cars and sports cars are. Even some motorbikes are pretty small.
True idiocy comes from ignorance and the arrogance to believe assumptions to be true. And you did make a pretty ignorant statement....
So the only road vehicles that should be legal are the ones manufactured specifically to be compatible with whatever cars are currently being manufactured? That car design should dominate the legality of absolutely everything else?
I take it you are employed by a pro-car lobbying organisation?
As a cyclist and as a motorist, you have a right to be on the road, but you DON'T have the right to ride however the hell you want.
In this case, the driver acted wrongly with bad passing and bad etiquette as well as poor knowledge of hand signals. But he clearly had a point.
#1 - according to the cyclist: "“This section of road is a difficult one for cyclists as most of us are simply travelling too fast for the pavement cycle path, and the lane itself is narrow and has the pedestrian islands."
And it is plainly visible in the video that there is virtually no pedestrian traffic on the cycle path. So the question of WHY NOT USE THE CYCLE PATH FOR A SECTION OF ROAD YOU CALL DIFFICULT?
Answer: He wanted to travel faster than is safe/allowed on the cycling path or perhaps wanted to protest (with good reason) that the cycling path is not NO PEDESTRIANS as they are in many other places.
But that does NOT mean that it was a wise choice to ignore the cycling path and ride on the road, with traffic in a section of road you call DIFFICULT.
The fact of the matter is that as a bicycle, you are ALWAYS going to be riding too fast for pedestrians and too slow for traffic. Hence the best course of action is to choose the path that represents the safest option for all parties involved (yes, cyclists have a responsibility for the safety of others, as do motorists).
So the logical choice is to take the cycle path, avoiding the much more dangerous vehicles and ADJUST SPEED ACCORDINGLY. If your bike is too fast for pedestrians, then SLOW DOWN AROUND PEDESTRIANS. Motorists have to SLOW DOWN AROUND CYCLISTS, so the idea that a cyclist "Shouldn't have to slow down and take a cycling path because they have a right to be on the roads" is self-centered and moronic.
If you have two options and you CHOOSE the one that represents more danger to yourself, then you feeling "fear and danger" because of your proximity to motorists IS ENTIRELY YOUR CHOICE.
If you don't want to feel that 'fear and danger', then slow down and ride the cycle path. This is not a complicated decision. But it IS a decision.
You are entitled to ride your bike, but you MAY be required to adjust speed according to the conditions.
This cyclist was not willing to do so. So a certain amount of namecalling is hardly surprising.
Good he should be upset. He didn't think anyone would notice him driving like that or "having a word" with a cyclist when he himself was at fault. So tough. It's out there. This is how this person treats vulnerable road users. It also displays that he has no idea about elements of the Highway Code.
He was on a public road. Claiming his privacy is infringed is a joke.
He just never thought his actions would be exposed. That's what upsets him. So good. Let that be a lesson.
The driving in the video is terrible.
It's clear that there is a traffic island coming up, and then after the first attempt he pulls alongside to shout and then pusjes past at the next island.
If he thinks that is ok, he should mail his licence back to the DVLA.
The fact the driver didn't like the video being put on YouTube, but was happy to speak to the local paper (giving his name) just makes him look ridiculous.
I suppose the people critising CyclingMikey here would rather the driver just continued driving like that until he hit someone.
If you don't like YouTube footage stories, they are easy to spot and avoid here.
Top 2 things that irritate drivers...
1. Cyclists not using cycle paths where available.
2. Cyclists (almost always 'roadies') riding two abreast holding up traffic while they have a chin wag.
All quite depressing isn't it?
It saddens me that some cyclists should feel that roads should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
It saddens me that infrastructure put in place for our 'benefit' is deemed so unsuitable that many cyclists refuse to use it.
I'm saddened that the powers that be deem it necessary to provide separate pathways for use by cyclists in the first place... what exactly is the benefit to the cyclist?
It saddens me that driver confusion about whether cyclists should or shouldn't use the roads/cycle paths is left unchallenged.
Why can't we scrap all this segregation rubbish and instead spend all that money I hear being invested into cycling infrastructure on better education for all road users (cyclists, pedestrians, drivers) in how to safely get along....
My opinion is that drivers get so pissy with cyclists because we challenge them... we challenge their competence at driving... they meet us on the road, and they are not sure what to do... when its safe to pass, they lack the education.
They don't want to sit back and assess the situation and pass when they know its safe, as they fear that hesitance will look to their driving peers will see them as weak or incompetent, so they strive to pass as soon as possible... we put them in an unpleasant mental place, and as is the human condition, they lash out at what they see as the cause... the cyclist, rather than learn the skills they need.
If you look at the cycle path on that road (and incidentally read the comments in the newspaper link) it's a discontinuous path that gives way to every side road and also runs alongside bus stops and other busy parts of the footpath.
If you told car drivers that we've "improved" their route to work by building them a "motorway" that they can have to themselves, but it's narrower than the road, they have to stop and give way every few hundred yards and it's littered with telegraph poles and lamp fixtures, they would quite rightly have a fit. However, this is the standard for most "cycle paths".
It's no wonder that if you want to get anywhere quickly, most reasonably quick cyclists just don't bother.
Personally my response to "get on the cyclepath!" comments is "get on the bus!"
I agree with Ush - I haven't seen the cyclist's other videos or his Twitter posts but this video is pretty clear cut. The car driver attempted an overtake where there wasn't room, which any half decent driver would've spotted. I've been driving cars for years as well as cycling and motorcycling and it was a clear example of poor anticipation by the driver.
There is no compulsion to use cycle lanes and since many are so badly laid out, it makes sense not to. The one in the video is discontinuous and while it may be ok for a child riding to school with a parent alongside, it's not one a commuter would want to use. I'm not a fan of recumbents myself but they appeal to some people and the crap driving would've still been crap driving if the cyclist had been on an MTB, a hybrid or a roadbike.
The driver is an oaf. He threw a wobbly because he was embarrassed at his poor judgement being posted online, then made it worse for himself by complaining to the local paper. It is rather ironic that the 'white van (wo?)man' overtaking earlier does it properly.
The stuff about recumbent Mikey, or whatever his name is, is irrelevant. Yes I'm a London rider but I've never knowingly come across this bloke so don't assume I'm a part of his 'clique'.
Maybe mickey should post footage of his driving being so experienced, sadly experience doesn't allows equal good.
Watching this video I honestly cannot see what on earth the criticism of this cyclist is about.
He's travelling at a good lick, following the rules of the road and the cretin that wanted to argue on the road instead of actually, ya know _paying attention to the road_, should just have sucked it up and got on with his life.
But no, Princess Rob, decided to drive parallel share his ignorance instead of getting on with his job.
Rob: man up and sort out your crap driving, or get off the roads.
The cyclist seems legally ok but to be honest the others have a few points that we may easily dismiss because we "dont like motorists". I don't think we should.
- hand signal is non-standard and yes, some will misinterpret, that doesn't make them bad persons or drivers.
- not ever using the bike lane to prove a point generally annoys motorists as it slows the traffic down significantly -as shown in this video.
I'm not sure the "added safety" really outweighs the gains. I only use the road (and when i do, i generally take control of the lane) when strictly necessary.
He seems to use the bike lane when strictly convenient. Sharp opposite.
It much depends on the state of the "bike lane". Seeing how "bike lane" more often than not means "that shitty part of the road where glass shards and other car debris accumulate in and around deep pot holes that never get fixed".
So yeah ... I'm terribly sorry that my concern for my physical safety inconveniences some people in their speeding steel cages. But I'm not going to put myself at risk so they can be at the next red light 5 seconds sooner. And anyone asking me to do that can go fuck themselves. Get off the road if you can't use it safely.
Where was the bit where he was trying to prove a point by not ever using the bike lane?
Except in that situation the cycle is "traffic" and frankly slowing the traffic down by a few seconds while they wait for a safe place to pass is not an issue, and if the driver thinks that 3 or 4 seconds on their journey is worth endangering someone's life, they probably shouldn't be driving
Eh? Since when does anyone have a right to overtake?
Especially where there's a traffic island?
Especially when there isn't room?
Especially when the road user being overtaking is explicitly indicating that they're moving to the right?
On the contrary trying to overtake here violates several of the specific examples of "Dangerous Overtaking" as stated in the highway code, which could in theory ( if not in practise ) lead to a charge of "Dangerous Driving". As well as looking after himself, Mikey might have helped the driver avoid causing a collision and this serious ( or some lesser ) charge.
But y'know, if the driver values his privacy so much as to write to the paper admitting performing a explicitly dangerous overtake, that's up to him.
Sorry, but while your first point about ambiguous signals might have merit, this bit annoys me. It seems to be based on the usual assumption that all motorists are there for totally unchallengeable and vitally important reasons (like 'going a mile to the paper shop' or 'going for a drive for the sake of it') while cyclists are just on the road getting in the way because they are messing about or being petulant.
Many cyclists avoid most cycle lanes because they know from experience they are more trouble than they are worth, and are generally only good for walking-pace cycling.
There are some I use (at least when not in a hurry) because I know them and know they are tolerable, but many are not worth bothering with, with the constant give-ways at side-roads, pedestrians walking in them, street furniture and trees in the middle of them, and cars parked on them, so if one doesn't know the particular path one is likely to just ignore it.
You could equally ask whether the motorist was 'proving a point' by not using a different route or some other mode of transport.
Then dont play the tribalism game.
Its about PEOPLE using forms of transport.
What does make you a bad driver is trying to overtake at a pinch point. Its completed fucking retarded and doesn't require pointing out. If it does, you should hand in your driving license immediately.
Before you spout such nonsense, acquaint yourself with the laws of the public highways: Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have RIGHT OF ACCESS. Whereas vehicles can only access them UNDER LICENSE.
There are strict conditions for that license, which sadly are not enforced as they should be.
Cycling provisions are not mandatory, are usually in terrible condition littered with glass and detritus, and are created by carving the pavement and converting into shared space.
Just because you decide to travel in a certain manner, doe snot mean that every one else who uses that same form of transport should travel as you do. Just as I do not think that because I can cycle at the same speed as motorised traffic (usually faster as Im in London), I do not think that everyone should be expected to travel at this speed or get the hell off the road.
Boo fucking hoo!
muffies wrote:
Big assumption there, I think it is more likely that he's not using the cycle lane because it's not in the slightest bit safe to cycle on it at 20-30mph and the fact that it gives way to every junction - it shouldn't.
I'd quite like to see a video of Mikey trying to ride his recumbent along that cycle line, so as to prove a point.
Indeed, elsewhere on the internet ( here or elsewhere, I don't know... and nothing to do with Mikey before MKultra get's all over excited and goes conspiracy theorist again... ), a motorcylist posted about how annoying it was cyclists cycling slowly up West Hill from Wandsworth to Putney. As it was part of my daily commute I described it... to his credit he replied and fully understood. I can't remember his words, but he had no idea of the problems with the cycle path while he was motoring up the ( usually congested ) road. He didn't even know that path only started after the steepest part of the hill to start with ( right outside a fire station, yay! ), let alone _all_ the usual problems of trees, street furniture, gaps in the path, side turnings every 20m or so ( literally ) ( it explicitly has bollards marking little slaloms before each side turning... great if you're a stunt rider on a SWB BMX... not so great for the 99.9% of people using the path on normal length bikes... ).
Despite being the second worst path that I know of ( 9 Elms Lane east bound is literally uncyclable, even to BMX stunt riders ) I did actually use it, but only because it was at the end of commute, and the main road was so congested that it had it's own exceptional frustrations and dangers ( i.e. it was nice to forget about cars launching themselves down side turnings for sort cuts without looking/indicating ).
Interestingly, the other side of the road, heading downhill, has a cycle lane, which works really, really well... but still many cyclists go down the single width cycle path... which is probably fair enough in the grander scheme, but adds to the fun while figuring out how to negotiate the many static obstacles.
Current guidance is that over 17mph you should not be using the cycle lane, so you may in fact be liable to a dangerous cycling prosecution.
Point 1 - Misinterpreting a non-standard hand signal doesn't make you a bad driver. What makes you a bad driver is taking action on an assumed meaning of the hand signal and creating a dangerous situation. If you are incapable of using your own judgement to avoid danger then you shouldn't be driving.
Point 2 - You're effectively saying that a person has more right to be on the road if they are driving a car, rather than riding a bike. That's wrong by any and all arguments.
Pages