‘Give cyclists space when passing’ say police after releasing dashcam footage of 70mph collision …driver got six penalty points

Xenophon2 wrote:

Why do you guys choose to ride on such roads??

Because people have places to go and that's the kind of road that goes to places.

Is the alternative to cede public infrasturcture to the bullies and just stay at home? Or to buy a car and join them?

I appreciate its not your intention but this is like the motorist who yells out "use the bike path" as they wizz past, depsite the bike path going somehwere you are not. It is more important that they don't have to share than you get to your destination.

That said I completely sympathise with people who are too scared to use the roads but maybe every time you want to be shocked at someone being brave enough to do so, you could instead write to a politician or donate money to a campaign group to try and fix the situation? There are many reasons we can't continue with this car obsession.

Xenophon2 wrote:

Where I am this type of road would be rated as a motorway and you're not allowed to access those on a bike or any vehicle that cannot do at least 70 kmph.  But anyway, seeing this and similar videos and without wanting to start a flame war, an honest question:

Why do you guys choose to ride on such roads??  I cannot for the life of me conceive of anyone with the sense of self preservation granted to a snail riding there on a bicycle, even if allowed.  In my continental eyes it's not simply possible but highly probable that an accident would happen.  I'd either ride a detour or simply not use a bike at all there.  Is it because there are no smaller roads, no cycling infrastructure to speak of...why??  I'm looking to understand.  Honestly, if I were to show that pic to 20 cycling buddies over here, at least 18 would think the cyclist either has a death wish or is crazy.  It has nothing to do with the legality:  even if perfectly legal to do so, I still wouldn't ride there, rather than makeing a statement I'd make it home in one piece.

Not an ascerbic reply to you in particular.  Just a general throwaway to ALL those victim-blaming the cyclist for being there on the A590.

Please - before you victim blame, have a look on Google Maps?  2 seconds effort?  Not much to ask?

And then think - just how far would the guy have had to ride to AVOID the A590?

Would I ride it?  I'm lucky - here in W Yorks I can find generally find at least a couple of options that avoid such roads.  So it's 30 miles to York, instead of 25 - no brainer.

But look at Google Maps!

It's not the cyclist's fault that THERE IS NO ADEQUATE, CONVENIENT, AND FUCKING SAFE OPTION.  

Xenophon2 wrote:

Where I am this type of road would be rated as a motorway and you're not allowed to access those on a bike or any vehicle that cannot do at least 70 kmph.  But anyway, seeing this and similar videos and without wanting to start a flame war, an honest question:

Why do you guys choose to ride on such roads??  I cannot for the life of me conceive of anyone with the sense of self preservation granted to a snail riding there on a bicycle, even if allowed.  In my continental eyes it's not simply possible but highly probable that an accident would happen.  I'd either ride a detour or simply not use a bike at all there.  Is it because there are no smaller roads, no cycling infrastructure to speak of...why??  I'm looking to understand.  Honestly, if I were to show that pic to 20 cycling buddies over here, at least 18 would think the cyclist either has a death wish or is crazy.  It has nothing to do with the legality:  even if perfectly legal to do so, I still wouldn't ride there, rather than makeing a statement I'd make it home in one piece.

I regularly cycle on the dual carriageway section of the A370 in Weston-super-Mare, though it's a short section and there's a roundabout at each end so traffic doesn't go as fast.

I choose to cycle along it, despite there being a shared footpath/cyclepath going parallel with it, mainly for speed and convenience. If I use the shared path then I'd have to go slower or risk hitting children and pets and the ending of the shared path dumps you out on a different road, so I'd have to then cross a busy road (4 lanes of traffic) in order to rejoin the roundabout (there is a pedestrian crossing if I want to wait a minute ot two). If I take the A370, I just go with the traffic and the main danger is from vehicles overtaking and then taking the left turning lane (i.e. a left hook).

hawkinspeter wrote:

Xenophon2 wrote:

Where I am this type of road would be rated as a motorway and you're not allowed to access those on a bike or any vehicle that cannot do at least 70 kmph.  But anyway, seeing this and similar videos and without wanting to start a flame war, an honest question:

Why do you guys choose to ride on such roads??  I cannot for the life of me conceive of anyone with the sense of self preservation granted to a snail riding there on a bicycle, even if allowed.  In my continental eyes it's not simply possible but highly probable that an accident would happen.  I'd either ride a detour or simply not use a bike at all there.  Is it because there are no smaller roads, no cycling infrastructure to speak of...why??  I'm looking to understand.  Honestly, if I were to show that pic to 20 cycling buddies over here, at least 18 would think the cyclist either has a death wish or is crazy.  It has nothing to do with the legality:  even if perfectly legal to do so, I still wouldn't ride there, rather than makeing a statement I'd make it home in one piece.

I regularly cycle on the dual carriageway section of the A370 in Weston-super-Mare, though it's a short section and there's a roundabout at each end so traffic doesn't go as fast.

I choose to cycle along it, despite there being a shared footpath/cyclepath going parallel with it, mainly for speed and convenience. If I use the shared path then I'd have to go slower or risk hitting children and pets and the ending of the shared path dumps you out on a different road, so I'd have to then cross a busy road (4 lanes of traffic) in order to rejoin the roundabout (there is a pedestrian crossing if I want to wait a minute ot two). If I take the A370, I just go with the traffic and the main danger is from vehicles overtaking and then taking the left turning lane (i.e. a left hook).

Yes, and, when dual carriageways are quiet, they're generally lovely. For example, a trip I did into London used a 3 lane section of the A40 (until it merged with the end of the M40), then a fair bit of DC A4020 through Uxbridge. Despite it being London, and the 3 lane section was moving at 50, it wasn't at all concerning. Nobody tried splitting L1 that time.

The same goes for DC sections of the A38 the time I went to Bristol - even if the M5 roundabout made me a bit apprehensive (I do love having to neogtiate out into a middle lane to avoid going onto a motorway).

Solocle wrote:

Yes, and, when dual carriageways are quiet, they're generally lovely.

I would agree, but there are the odd exception, like this 70mph beauty near me...

Dropped pin
Near Unnamed Road, Bedford MK44 2DQ
https://goo.gl/maps/cJ43qMtaxMnwrCYq9

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

My personal choice is to avoid these type of roads as the speed difference would cause the rare reasonable good driver to not react in time, let alone the poor ones like in this video. 

Thing is, I know the rider looks like they're doing their own personal TT, but what are the alternatives like?  There are so many routes around the country where the roads have been dualled to make them more convenient for motorists, which means that a safe/non-dualled route for a cyclist might be two or three times the distance... 

brooksby wrote:

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

My personal choice is to avoid these type of roads as the speed difference would cause the rare reasonable good driver to not react in time, let alone the poor ones like in this video. 

Thing is, I know the rider looks like they're doing their own personal TT, but what are the alternatives like?  There are so many routes around the country where the roads have been dualled to make them more convenient for motorists, which means that a safe/non-dualled route for a cyclist might be two or three times the distance... 

I know, as I said my choice would be not to ride it. The other week when I went to see the ToB go past near me, the route I was going to take was diverted due to bridge work. I used Google Maps on cycle settings to see if the diversion was rideable and it stated yes. Unfortunately it turned out it led to a three lane dual carriageway which was motorway in all but name. My choice was to resign to the fact that I was missing the ToB and reversed course to look at another route. This was a single carriageway at 60mph which was probably just as dangerous in reality but I did feel safer for some reason. On viewing flybys later I noticed a couple had cycled along the dual carriageway for some of their route but rather them then me. 

ktache wrote:

I'm sure nicmason and disherwood would be blaming the cyclist for not being in the gutter quite enough.

And if anyone would like to suggest "that taking the lane" would have prevented this, I would say, no, taking the lane in this instance would mean a dead cyclist.

If you want the full victim blaming bingo card set just go read some of the replies to the ITV Borders tweet that covered it... includes the cyclist should have worn hi-viz,run daytime lights & not taken their arm off the handlebars as well as the usual nonsense

ktache wrote:

I'm sure nicmason and disherwood would be blaming the cyclist for not being in the gutter quite enough.

And if anyone would like to suggest "that taking the lane" would have prevented this, I would say, no, taking the lane in this instance would mean a dead cyclist.

Why is this driver allowed to keep their licence?  Surely driving of this shockingly low standard should have been prosecuted at more than without due care and attention?

Did they stop?  No mention of this.

Not at all. This is the sort of driving that warrants a banning from driving and a substantial fine. The driver clearly wasn't looking at all.

My issue is with the urban low speed "close passes" that often feature on here . This is completely different and the cyclist is lucky to be alive.

Podc wrote:

... I asked the driver of the second car to give me more room when  overtaking. He looked confused and said 'What?'. I said when you overtook me back there you were really close. He said 'Where the fuck were you then?'. He hadn't even seen me. Dead straight road. Middle of the day.

Unfortunately, I suspect that's par for the course (and I bet when the police asked the van driver in the story about it, I would lay actual money that their initial response was a simple "I didn't see him").

In this case, I know burt's mentioned distraction above, and that's likely TBH, but isn't there also something that used to be called "highway hypnosis"?  The van's just driving along a straight road, not changing speed, not manoeuvering, and the driver's not even having to move their hands or feet or anything, and they just follow the car ahead, not looking or noticing anything else.

brooksby wrote:

Podc wrote:

... I asked the driver of the second car to give me more room when  overtaking. He looked confused and said 'What?'. I said when you overtook me back there you were really close. He said 'Where the fuck were you then?'. He hadn't even seen me. Dead straight road. Middle of the day.

Unfortunately, I suspect that's par for the course (and I bet when the police asked the van driver in the story about it, I would lay actual money that their initial response was a simple "I didn't see him").

In this case, I know burt's mentioned distraction above, and that's likely TBH, but isn't there also something that used to be called "highway hypnosis"?  The van's just driving along a straight road, not changing speed, not manoeuvering, and the driver's not even having to move their hands or feet or anything, and they just follow the car ahead, not looking or noticing anything else.

Well there is evidence to suggest drivers on elongated stretches of straight roads with little stimulus to engage them do then tend to lose concentration or attentiveness to hazards,its also more tiring which compounds it,but you cant drive in a straight line without some steering wheel input,so it could be more like they were driving on autopilot brain mode where your brain subconsciously takes over and as with the other example above a driver when queried will have no recollection of any hazards,traffic lights or anything they just drove past

the little onion wrote:

Why bother giving them room? What's the point of making changes to your shocking driving? you are only going to get 6 penalty points and £350 fine after all. 

Yup, you could get the same penalty for using your phone whilst stationary in a traffic jam.

PRSboy wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Why bother giving them room? What's the point of making changes to your shocking driving? you are only going to get 6 penalty points and £350 fine after all. 

Yup, you could get the same penalty for using your phone whilst stationary in a traffic jam.

Judging by the attempt to move out as the cyclist was hit, phone usage was probably to blame!

the little onion wrote:

Why bother giving them room? What's the point of making changes to your shocking driving? you are only going to get 6 penalty points and £350 fine after all. 

I had an old lady close pass me yesterday, that wasn’t the closest though, I got l got knocked off with a car pulling out on me from being parked. She said she never saw me. I think that looking and seeing might help. 

Jimnm wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Why bother giving them room? What's the point of making changes to your shocking driving? you are only going to get 6 penalty points and £350 fine after all. 

I had an old lady close pass me yesterday, that wasn’t the closest though, I got l got knocked off with a car pulling out on me from being parked. She said she never saw me. I think that looking and seeing might help. 

Looking helps, and not having stupid tinted side windows, in the dark,  . .  lit up like a Christmas tree and this wan--- erm . .  inconsiderate soul, pulled straight out in front of me. I'm guessing it was as dim between the tinted windows as it is between the driver's ears.

Jimnm wrote:

 I had an old lady close pass me yesterday, that wasn’t the closest though, I got l got knocked off with a car pulling out on me from being parked. She said she never saw me. I think that looking and seeing might help. 

I know it's easier said than done, but that's the moment to bite back the anger and explain calmly and carefully to the old dear that she "has just caused an accident by her lack of awareness, and even though she probably thought she was fine, maybe it's time to start considering surrendering that license"

A cynic may call it emotional blackmail, exploiting the moment, but if driving into someone isn't powerful enough for people to consider the safety of others with them behind the wheel, we get to the situation in the OP: Courts need to intervene and strip licenses off careless / dangerous / lethal drivers.

the little onion wrote:

Why bother giving them room? What's the point of making changes to your shocking driving? you are only going to get 6 penalty points and £350 fine after all. 

The guy who hit me did exactly that, dead straight road, good conditions and smashed me straight on from behind.  Air lifted to hospital and left me with life long injuries and just about able to walk again almost two years later. 

No fine, no points and he walked from county court as there was "no evidence" to prove his driving "fell far below the acceptable standard".  Unbelievable as only all of it did.  I had amnesia so could provide no testimony and the evidence from my Garmin was thrown out as unreliable.  The defence brief used Garmin's own disclaimer to have it thrown out.  Thanks a bunch Garmin looking out for us customers.