Near Miss of the Day 78: Close passing crane and Jewson lorry drivers

Grahamd wrote:

Something is fundamentally wrong with our infrastructure planners, the amount of pavement being used solely for refuse bins is ridiculous, use half of it to widen the cycle lane.

Should we dress as Wheely Bins or disguise the bins as bikes?

alansmurphy wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

Something is fundamentally wrong with our infrastructure planners, the amount of pavement being used solely for refuse bins is ridiculous, use half of it to widen the cycle lane.

Should we dress as Wheely Bins or disguise the bins as bikes?

l

I was thinking more along the lines of digging it up and resurfacing; however there is merit in you suggestion. I have never seen a car hit a wheely bin, the drivers always seem to see them and give them a wide birth, in case the inanimate object damages their precious box.

Crashboy wrote:

As mentioned in other posts, The real problem these incidents highlight are infrastructure, not motorists:

A) cycle lanes are not wide enough - motorists are fully within their rights to drive clost to the solid white line so we can't really blame them for doing so as the white line is the boundary, not some hypothetical boundary further out from the line.

Maybe the answer is to have TWO lines - say a single red one  on the off-side which indicates the boundary for the cyclist and then a gap, THEN the white one so there is a buffer zone? (but see point B - roads not usually wide enough)

B) there are too many enormous lorries using roads that were never designed for vehicles that size and they take up the whole lane hence physically have nowhere to move over to even if they wanted to give the lane more space.  Whose fault that is, is another debate I suupose.

 

Surely the problem is selfishness and piss poor driving, no?

Crashboy wrote:

As mentioned in other posts, The real problem these incidents highlight are infrastructure, not motorists:

A) cycle lanes are not wide enough - motorists are fully within their rights to drive clost to the solid white line so we can't really blame them for doing so as the white line is the boundary, not some hypothetical boundary further out from the line.

 

That's not true is it?

I believe the giving people reasonable distance or the new 1.5m takes precedence over the appearance of the white line.

The problem with them is that drivers consider the then road as their lane and what's to the left as the cycle lane which is why they drive it like they're on a motorway / dual carriageway "so long as I'm in my lane I'm fine". Would explain why the drivers in this video don't deviate a mm from their line...

alansmurphy wrote:

Crashboy wrote:

As mentioned in other posts, The real problem these incidents highlight are infrastructure, not motorists:

A) cycle lanes are not wide enough - motorists are fully within their rights to drive clost to the solid white line so we can't really blame them for doing so as the white line is the boundary, not some hypothetical boundary further out from the line.

 

That's not true is it? I believe the giving people reasonable distance or the new 1.5m takes precedence over the appearance of the white line. The problem with them is that drivers consider the then road as their lane and what's to the left as the cycle lane which is why they drive it like they're on a motorway / dual carriageway "so long as I'm in my lane I'm fine". Would explain why the drivers in this video don't deviate a mm from their line...

I suppose it's a nature/nurture debate though, are people naturally bad on the roads or has the environment made them so?

I think that the infrastructure has a lot to answer for as far as bad road behaviour goes. Having traffic lights that do not activate for cyclists plants the idea that traffic lights are not for cyclists so can be ignored, cycle lane widths plant the idea to drivers of how much room cyclists need.

We can't prove if it's nature or nurture until we remove one of them, and the only one that can be removed is the nurture and changing infrastructure is a good place to start.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Is that a 40mph road too, this is a totally mental set up and the cammer should make a complaint to the agency that put this shite in place using the vid as an example as to why it's shite/dangerous.

Yes, it is 40mph roughly from Mays Lane at the Reading end to Larch Avenue at the Wokingham end. If it wasn't for the speed cameras, most drivers would be doing around 45.

Which didn't stop the woman that pulled out on me from Mill lane, nearly hitting me, from accusing me of "speeding" on my bike - at about 27mph.

Oddly, one of the most dangerous things I've seen in the bike lane was a jogger in the dark last winter, in black. it was only the relections on the backs of her calves that told anyone she was there.

burtthebike wrote:

Just the effects of the typical low grade British bike provision.  Put in a narrow, dangerous bike lane, tick the box for cycle provision and move on, then complain when the cyclists don't flock to use it, and even have the effrontery to complain about the lovely new cycle lane, which the kind drivers have paid for to keep the cyclists safe out of the kindness of their hearts.

Narrow cycle lanes, such as the ones shown in the vid, are more dangerous than nothing at all, encouraging drivers to pass cyclists dangerously close, and, of course, they disappear where there is the slightest conflict, at junctions and road narrowings, precisely where they are needed the most.

We need someone in the DfT at cabinet level to actively promote cycling and cycle provision, not these utterly counterproductive pathetic sops to the cycle lobby.  I haven't caught up with the latest tory reshuffle, but I haven't heard anything which might approximate this, only that the new cabinet is even more private school education biased with chauffer driven millionaires to the fore.

On the Reading Road, the lane is actually quite wide and smooth up to the motorway bridge... Where it suddenly becomes thin and vanishes, regularly, into the poorly-surfaced pavement, all the way into Wokingham.

Driving standards are the bigger issue though.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

On the Reading Road, the lane is actually quite wide and smooth up to the motorway bridge... Where it suddenly becomes thin and vanishes, regularly, into the poorly-surfaced pavement, all the way into Wokingham.

Driving standards are the bigger issue though.

They've been resurfacing in sections - the bit from the motorway into Wokingham is Phase 4 and scheduled to be done this year, but they're about to put 2 roundabouts in either side of the motorway bridge. One to link up the Reading Road to the end of Longdon Road and the other by the BP garage where the new North Wokingham Distributor Route is going - look up Winnersh Relief Road Phase 2.

LastBoyScout wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

On the Reading Road, the lane is actually quite wide and smooth up to the motorway bridge... Where it suddenly becomes thin and vanishes, regularly, into the poorly-surfaced pavement, all the way into Wokingham.

Driving standards are the bigger issue though.

They've been resurfacing in sections - the bit from the motorway into Wokingham is Phase 4 and scheduled to be done this year, but they're about to put 2 roundabouts in either side of the motorway bridge. One to link up the Reading Road to the end of Longdon Road and the other by the BP garage where the new North Wokingham Distributor Route is going - look up Winnersh Relief Road Phase 2.

Yeah, not looking forward to that, it will make my journey to my girlfriend's house slightly more direct from Lower Earley to Woosehill, but all the extra junctions will likely add more journey time... and it's a massive waste of money in a time of austerity, it won't improve anything for anyone, just cause more traffic.

Also, the resurfacing and works on the pavements, AKA "cycleway improvements" are just a joke and anything but improvement. Particularly by The Rifle Volunteer and near The Holt school.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Yeah, not looking forward to that, it will make my journey to my girlfriend's house slightly more direct from Lower Earley to Woosehill, but all the extra junctions will likely add more journey time... and it's a massive waste of money in a time of austerity, it won't improve anything for anyone, just cause more traffic.

Also, the resurfacing and works on the pavements, AKA "cycleway improvements" are just a joke and anything but improvement. Particularly by The Rifle Volunteer and near The Holt school.

Agreed and ditto for me from Wokingham to Lower Earley on way to J11.

If only my wife would let me put the kids on the motorbike - 1 in front and 1 behind should be fine, right?

LastBoyScout wrote:

I know that road - the crane is approaching Little Horse Close on Wokingham road and the Jewson lorry is further along outside the Pheasant Inn, on Reading Road.

They've been installing those lanes as part of re-surfacing the road, despite both footpaths being shared use for bikes and pedestrians. It wouldn't be too bad, except that they fizzle out all over the place where there are pedestrian islands and other junction layouts, where they then try and guide you onto the pavement. Where they then re-join the road, many cyclists don't then look for other cyclists joining up the gaps on the road before dropping onto them - I've had a few near misses this way. There's one point where some genius has painted it in such a way that if you follow where it's telling you to join the pavement, you'll probably hit the curb, as it only overlaps about 6" of the dropped curb you're supposed to be guided up.

Opposite the entrance to Halfords, they've painted it as a dotted line, so that vehicles can use it to get round other vehicles that are waiting to turn into Halfords - you can bet how many drivers check for cyclists before just pulling into it.

On a bike, they are slightly useful in rush hour. On a motorbike they are a disaster, as they've pushed the cars closer to the middle of the road and hence greatly reduced the filtering gap there.

In any case, they are at odds with the recommendation to give cyclists 1.5m when overtaking and actually encourage close passes, because an official white line on a road is obviously all the distance you need to give - a notion that gets carried on to roads where there isn't that painted line.

I know these roads very well. Usually drive them more than cycle on them, I totally agree with your comments. In my experience, Uphillfreewheeler was lucky that they didn't cross the magic white line of infinite protection

The white line means nothing to most drivers, other than they seem to think it's a boundary to keep cyclists out of their way.

I've ridden outside of the white line, only to have mutiple dickheads pass me more closely and deliberately dangerously than in the video, usually while hitting their horn and/or shouting abuse or threats. I once had a taxi driver try to ram me into the cycle/dooring lane while verbally abusing me. You can guess how seriously the police took it.

You're damned whether you use the lane or not. It would be far safer if the white lines weren't there at all.

Ironically, when it's clear most motons drive at 30 in the 40 and 40 in the 30 on Reading/Wokingham Road (A329).

Road.cc had previously reported that the dooring lanes on Wokingham road had been removed, this really doesn't seem to be the case. Oh, and don't get me started on the number of bicycles painted on that road for no apparent reason... I guess the council have got a budget they must spend?!

FrankH wrote:

"Spend any time riding in one of these lanes and you'll experience the same thing - not helped by the fact that such lanes are often extremely narrow and poorly surfaced as well as containing hazards such as drain covers..."

plus

...potholes and all the  gravel, litter and other detritus thrown there by the other traffic.

Another issue that you sometimes get with larger vehicles such as lorries and buses is the sidedraft created when they are travelling at speed. The buffeting effect can result in you being pushed out to the kerb or, more worryingly, you being sucked in toward the overtaking vehicle.

dassie wrote:

As we know it's not mandatory for cyclists to use these lanes, so I almost never cycle within the lane if there's traffic about.  To cycle well within these cycle lanes does not assert a cyclist's road space sufficiently, particularly because drivers seem to use the line as an excuse to not give adequate space to cyclists.

I'm not sure it's the case that drivers see them as an excuse to squeeze cyclists, I'd say drivers drive to the mrkings which reenforce the views of many drivers that this is the appropriate amount of room a cyclist needs because otherwise why would would the lines be painted where they are? 

All cyclists obviously know that the space given is inadequate and the only way you could get the drivers to drive further from the line would be if there were big bollards that would make a mess of their precious vehicles if they hit them.