Near Miss of the Day 168: Van driver crosses solid line, forcing cyclists out of way

AndyH01 wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

AndyH01 wrote:

 

No it appears you moved to the right, to the middle lane, in front of the white van.The bus lane you was in had ended.

 

 

How do you figure that?  The van driver starts crossing a solid white line at 06secs.  The cyclist at that point is still in their original lane.  The line is still solid till about 09secs.

 

That's exactly what I see. The bus lane 'widens' to form the left lane and the middle lane. Cyclist stays in middle lane, where he was. Driver cuts across from what is now the right lane, across the middle lane, aiming for the left lane.  Cyclist has to brake and go around him.  How the devil does that make the cylist at fault?

The van moves over prior to the three lanes, it's only two lanes further back-  bus lane which the driver cut into about a meter prior to when he technically should and the main lstraight on lane for rest of traffic not able to use bus lane. 

I've not said that it's the cyclist fault. 

Just before Tesco express as the van is indicating, assuming op is in line with the guy with grey tshirt and rucksac there is only two lanes, OP is near the curb, after the incident at about 3.22 on the full version, you can almost see the line that's going to be taken by the two cyclist in front; the grey tshirt and the one further up to the right ahead of where the lane splits with the yellow bag compared to the other cyclist, closer to the left who one assumes is indeed going left at the juction. 

At aprox 3.25 in the full version video if he had stayed on the previous line he'd be closer to the curb behind the red car and the cyclist with the blue helmet but no he's in the middle lane suggesting he's moved to the right. 

What can I say, man?  Should've gone to Specsavers.  

AndyH01 wrote:

[q

 

The van moves over prior to the three lanes, it's only two lanes further back-  bus lane which the driver cut into about a meter prior to when he technically should and the main lstraight on lane for rest of traffic not able to use bus lane. 

Looks to me like a full van-length short of the solid line ending, so more like 5m than 1m.  Are you sure you aren't bending the facts to minimise the problem with your original argument?  And I'm not sure the word 'technically' means anything here.  He was changing lanes where he wasn't legally allowed to, so the requirement to be patient is even stronger than it would normally be.

cycle.london wrote:

AndyH01 wrote:

I've edited my orginal replies several times prior to posting and will summarise by saying personally for me, all this highlights is the widening of the gulf between various road user groups. It fuels this current climete of motors v cycles v pedesrians, with the colsutation on potentail law reforms to "protect the most vounlurable road users" I'm not sure if this example strenghens or weakens our arguments.

I don't know the road layout other than from what I can see on the video, which I have reviewed several times. I would suggest the first incident with the VW van, is an example of poor road planning, design and layout. Effectivley the cycle lane appears to be a left hand turn only lane, as the VW was already in the correct lane for the left turn, his late indication was a courtesey to the other road users, including cyclists, using the cycle lane that may indeed be going straight on and therefore by using the green tarmac "cycle lane" actually puts cyclists in the wrong lane, for going straigt on. Personally I would be in the middle lane, in this type of situation and not use the "cycle lane" as though I was in my car..

As I say, I'm not from London and AFAIK, use of cycle lanes are optional, not mandontry.

The second incident with the white van, sorry but I am struggling a bit with the preception and I'm assuming out of all the other close passess submitted to Road cc for consideration on the day, this being the worse example.

I appreicate the OP says they've not been on the bike for awhile and fatigued after 18 miles, but knows the road layout and route well and usually takes the last 3rd of the lane but on this ocassion was more in secondary.

Personally I think the OP had the blinkers on/auto pilot a bit and was following the cyclist in front, with the gray T shirt and black ruksack, who being in front of the van had moved into the middle lane, causing the OP to drift a bit to the right, to their normal position at this juction, at the same time as the van driver had started his manovour, moving into the left lane, beleving the OP would maintain their course/line ie secondary position and may have been going left, for all the van driver knew, not as though OP was signalling to move to the right from the bus lane that mergers to a left turn only lane.  

The van crossed the solid white line approx a meter from where the bus lane ends, possibly due to the longer stationary queuing traffic ahead and to position behind the red car in the left lane, if he'd waited to the end of the line he probably would of got stuck between the left and middle lanes causing further issues for all other road users. 

The beep of the horn could of been for anything.

I'm genuinly not trolling, yes the van driver could of waited in his current lane until the OP had safetly pased, however given how busy the road appears, there could be loads more cyclists behind also doing the same ie using the left lane to filter prior to switching at the junction, which then means motors going straight on, get stuck behind the van.

It comes down to planning design and road layout again, if the bus lane was shorter or didn't exist, it would allow vehicles to get in lane earlier.

Personall I'd be filtering through on the right to avoid the left hook. 

 

No, I did not have 'blinkers' on and no, I was not 'on autopilot'.  Both are ways to get killed, and on my commute into and out of London, I am insanely focused at all times.    I knew exactly what was going on ahead of me and  - if you'll note the frequent 'lifesaver' glances to my left and right - behind me.    

 

Quote:

if he'd waited to the end of the line he probably would of got stuck between the left and middle lanes causing further issues for all other road users.

Diddums.  

Tough shit.   He waits.  He doesn't barge in.  

You may not be trolling, but you're not that bright.  

Or succinct.

hirsute wrote:

I think you should be arrested cycle.london as the video clearly shows you at 50 seconds travelling at 232 km/h !!

Oh yes, I'd not noticed that!  Fair cop, guv', I'll come quietly.

cycle.london wrote:

hirsute wrote:

I think you should be arrested cycle.london as the video clearly shows you at 50 seconds travelling at 232 km/h !!

Oh yes, I'd not noticed that!  Fair cop, guv', I'll come quietly.

You seemed to be going at a similar speed whilst stopped at a red light.

Do you not understand that cyclists do not stop at red lights ?!

hirsute wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

hirsute wrote:

I think you should be arrested cycle.london as the video clearly shows you at 50 seconds travelling at 232 km/h !!

Oh yes, I'd not noticed that!  Fair cop, guv', I'll come quietly.

You seemed to be going at a similar speed whilst stopped at a red light. Do you not understand that cyclists do not stop at red lights ?!

What are these 'red lights' of which you speak? 

hirsute wrote:

I think you should be arrested cycle.london as the video clearly shows you at 50 seconds travelling at 232 km/h !!

Now that's what I call cycling furiously!

cycle.london wrote:

I agree with the posters who suspect that some of the responses on here are from trolls and/or the company representatives. 

Not so sure about that, I think they (atgni and John Smith(?)) are just idiots.
Spoiler alert, not much to see in the extra footage, especially after the incident.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

I agree with the posters who suspect that some of the responses on here are from trolls and/or the company representatives. 

Not so sure about that, I think they (atgni and John Smith(?)) are just idiots.
Spoiler alert, not much to see in the extra footage, especially after the incident.

Killjoy. :-P

Podc wrote:

I'm always a bit nervous about trying to give way to someone in these type of situations when I'm on a bike. I'd be worried that other people using the cycle lane wouldn't spot what was going on and would carry on and potentially get into trouble. I've had it a few times on normal roads with drivers - I'll try and take up as much room as possible to let someone out or cross the road and people behind plough on regardless and overtake without reading the situation. So unless I'm sure there is nothing behind me I tend not to be 'courteous'. And if there is nothing behind me then there is little point me giving way - they can wait the extra few seconds and go after me.

Completely agree.

One of my pet peeves is when a motorist is courteous to another vehicle (e.g. let it pull out of a side road) but that blocks your own progress as you may be filtering on the inside of traffic.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Podc wrote:

I'm always a bit nervous about trying to give way to someone in these type of situations when I'm on a bike. I'd be worried that other people using the cycle lane wouldn't spot what was going on and would carry on and potentially get into trouble. I've had it a few times on normal roads with drivers - I'll try and take up as much room as possible to let someone out or cross the road and people behind plough on regardless and overtake without reading the situation. So unless I'm sure there is nothing behind me I tend not to be 'courteous'. And if there is nothing behind me then there is little point me giving way - they can wait the extra few seconds and go after me.

Completely agree.

One of my pet peeves is when a motorist is courteous to another vehicle (e.g. let it pull out of a side road) but that blocks your own progress as you may be filtering on the inside of traffic.

Like when the motorist coming out only looks at the now stationary car and not at the still happily moving cyclist using the cycle lane?

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Podc wrote:

I'm always a bit nervous about trying to give way to someone in these type of situations when I'm on a bike. I'd be worried that other people using the cycle lane wouldn't spot what was going on and would carry on and potentially get into trouble. I've had it a few times on normal roads with drivers - I'll try and take up as much room as possible to let someone out or cross the road and people behind plough on regardless and overtake without reading the situation. So unless I'm sure there is nothing behind me I tend not to be 'courteous'. And if there is nothing behind me then there is little point me giving way - they can wait the extra few seconds and go after me.

Completely agree.

One of my pet peeves is when a motorist is courteous to another vehicle (e.g. let it pull out of a side road) but that blocks your own progress as you may be filtering on the inside of traffic.

Like when the motorist coming out only looks at the now stationary car and not at the still happily moving cyclist using the cycle lane?

Yes, that'd be it.

It also annoys me if I'm overtaking a line of traffic on the outside and a similar thing happens even though I can't really protest as I'm the one overtaking (when not safe to do so).

Mungecrundle wrote:

Not so much defending the van driver as suggesting that on a busy urban road there are going to be situations where another road user does something wrong and you are going to have to deal with it. Being aware of the limitations to visibility when operating a van is not a crime. Being aware that said van user is telegraphing an intention that may bring them into a line of conflict with you and making just the teensiest effort to take control of that situation to make it safer for yourself and others around you does not make you a victim of the "might is right" culture. Even if another road user insists or being an utter penis, does not mean you have to be one too. In this scenario some drivers would take a cyclist yielding position as encouragement that forcing their way into cycle lanes is OK, but most people are basically decent and recognise when someone else is cutting them a break, they may even return that favour the next time they come across a cyclist not sticking 100% to the rules or needing a bit of courtesy to make their way.

Well, I did ask for a comment from the company, but wasn't expecting one here.  What exactly is your position with them?

Mungecrundle wrote:

Even if another road user insists or being an utter penis, does not mean you have to be one too. In this scenario some drivers would take a cyclist yielding position as encouragement that forcing their way into cycle lanes is OK, but most people are basically decent and recognise when someone else is cutting them a break, they may even return that favour the next time they come across a cyclist not sticking 100% to the rules or needing a bit of courtesy to make their way.

This rider was being entirely reasonable, he hasn't done anything that stoops to the driver's level.

I suggest anyone who pulls a move like that in the video is exactly the type that will perceive it's fine if the cyclist gives way and that reinforces their idea that it's acceptable to drive as such.

There is a responsibility on licenced drivers to avoid a collision if the situation was reversed, as the danger is not reversed. I don't follow what you mean by doing some other cyclist a favour when they don't stick to the rules. What are they going to do, wind the window down and pass them a sticky bottle?

ChrisB200SX wrote:

There is a responsibility on licenced drivers to avoid a collision if the situation was reversed, as the danger is not reversed. I don't follow what you mean by doing some other cyclist a favour...

Wrong. There is a requirement on all road users to avoid a collision. This basic duty of care to others absolutely trumps any "right of way", "my priority" nonsense. AND DOES NOT MAKE YOU THE WEAKER PERSON!

As to "favour", how about trivial little things like moving over a smidge to ease someone else filtering past as an example?

Some good points about being courteous to the point of confusing the situation and potentially putting others in the path of danger.

Mungecrundle wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

There is a responsibility on licenced drivers to avoid a collision if the situation was reversed, as the danger is not reversed. I don't follow what you mean by doing some other cyclist a favour...

Wrong. There is a requirement on all road users to avoid a collision. As to "favour", how about trivial little things like moving over a smidge to ease someone else filtering past as an example?

How is what I said wrong? You realise neither cyclist collided with the van?
I don't really equate having to take evasive action due to deliberately illegal and dangerous driving to it being unreasonable to expect sensible and considerate road positioning.
I'm currently driving into London and leaving enough space for filtering bikes/motorbikes literally takes zero effort. I don't really see that as doing someone a favour.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Hirsute was trying to show you what is implied by your comment. You only made negative comments about the cyclistw who was not doing anything wrong. You didn't comment on the illegal and dangerous driving that forced the situation. It seems you are blaming the vulnerable road users who are being bullied by the dangerous driver.

You also keep stating things that are patently incorrect.

It's a bus lane, you're supposed to overtake what's moving slower in the lanes to the right, that's the entire point of it.

The van was not slowing into a gap, there was no safe gap to move into and any minimal distance between the two cyclists is a bus lane which the driver should not be moving into in any case.

The cyclist evidently did save time by not emergency braking for the dangerous driver who continued to escalate the conflict he had caused, because he was ahead of the van in the end and not behind it. This is irrelevant to the dangerous driving or whether cyclists should give way to drivers attempting things they shouldn't. It's plainly whataboutery to distract from the issue.

I've seen enough to have formed the opinion that you really don't understand your own comments.

Really?

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Hirsute was trying to show you what is implied by your comment. You only made negative comments about the cyclistw who was not doing anything wrong. You didn't comment on the illegal and dangerous driving that forced the situation. It seems you are blaming the vulnerable road users who are being bullied by the dangerous driver.

You also keep stating things that are patently incorrect.

It's a bus lane, you're supposed to overtake what's moving slower in the lanes to the right, that's the entire point of it.

The van was not slowing into a gap, there was no safe gap to move into and any minimal distance between the two cyclists is a bus lane which the driver should not be moving into in any case.

The cyclist evidently did save time by not emergency braking for the dangerous driver who continued to escalate the conflict he had caused, because he was ahead of the van in the end and not behind it. This is irrelevant to the dangerous driving or whether cyclists should give way to drivers attempting things they shouldn't. It's plainly whataboutery to distract from the issue.

I've seen enough to have formed the opinion that you really don't understand your own comments.

He's a troll.  Mods, can you do your stuff?  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Hirsute was trying to show you what is implied by your comment. You only made negative comments about the cyclistw who was not doing anything wrong. You didn't comment on the illegal and dangerous driving that forced the situation. It seems you are blaming the vulnerable road users who are being bullied by the dangerous driver.

You also keep stating things that are patently incorrect.

It's a bus lane, you're supposed to overtake what's moving slower in the lanes to the right, that's the entire point of it.

The van was not slowing into a gap, there was no safe gap to move into and any minimal distance between the two cyclists is a bus lane which the driver should not be moving into in any case.

The cyclist evidently did save time by not emergency braking for the dangerous driver who continued to escalate the conflict he had caused, because he was ahead of the van in the end and not behind it. This is irrelevant to the dangerous driving or whether cyclists should give way to drivers attempting things they shouldn't. It's plainly whataboutery to distract from the issue.

I've seen enough to have formed the opinion that you really don't understand your own comments.

He's a troll.  Mods, can you do your stuff?  

Oh do behave. It's a difference of opinion, and he's wrong, but you can't expect someone to get chopped for that.

Thankfully the Mods aren't so sensitive. You and I have both got away with far worse. 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

He's a troll.  Mods, can you do your stuff?  

You quoted ChrisB200SX - did you mean to call him/her (probably a him) a troll or were you referring to Hirsute?

Either way, I wouldn't expect mods to do anything about a bit of lively debate.