Near Miss of the Day 790 updated: Cyclist gets ANOTHER close pass from same taxi the day after punishment pass

Even fascists don't agree what fascism is. Engelbert Dollfuss (fascist leader of Austria until 1934) & Mussolini both believed Hitler wasn't a fascist, just a totalitarian. Interestingly Mussolini initially supported Dollfuss against Germany as they were both worried about the nazis and Hitler later killed one and saved the other (temporarily).

You don't have to go far to find modern day examples of real Facism in the Left and their "Progressive" governments... 

Over-reaching laws, rules and censorship, removal of anything which doesn't fit your party line as "Disinformation", a love for utalitarian uniforms (or masks), crushing of opposing views (no debate, just cancel culture), suppression of protest, severe economic regimentation in the name of Greenwashing, etc.

The idea that you somehow "cock a smok" in freedom while spending 99% of your time blindly following and spouting the authority's line, is laughable. 

Do ever post anything in cycling?

Who is the 'authority'?
Have I stumbled into a Philip Pullman world ?

So if I commit a driving offence, just change jobs and they let you off?! Uh? Is that a new one?

Sriracha wrote:

So if I commit a driving offence, just change jobs and they let you off?! Uh? Is that a new one?

It's very common in the police. Do something bad and face no action by resigning.

Unfortunately the footway adjacent to crossing zig-zags is not covered by the zig-zags. (Source ranty-highwayman when I was on Twitter some years ago)

Hamster wrote:

Unfortunately the footway adjacent to crossing zig-zags is not covered by the zig-zags. (Source ranty-highwayman when I was on Twitter some years ago)

I've seen Ashley Neil call parking on the pavement by zigzags illegal before. Same with parking on the pavement near double yellows.

I think technically Hamster is right - the regulation regarding zig-zags applies to the "carriageway" while the regulation regarding double yellows applies to the whole "road".

Zig-zags: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/27/made

Yellows: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made (see diag 1018.1) 

Yes, I have to agree that Mr Loophole would win that one, another poorly drafted law where the writers have failed to conceive of the many and varied ways motorists seek to abuse the priviledge of their licensed activity. Clearly, a car so parked obstructs the view of people waiting to cross so it must be considered the sort of activity that should have been within the intent of the law.

There is an argument that all pavement parking is already illegal (except where expressly permitted) by virtue of the fact that it is illegal to drive onto the pavement. http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/footway_parking_legality.html 

Exactly why those bits of legislation are routinely ignored is unclear - the prevailing argument appears to be that it is impossible to secure a conviction without someone actually witnessing the vehicle being driven onto the pavement. 

Correct.  In practice decriminalised, devolved to local authorities who may or may not do much, even if they could spare the resources.  Alas it really isn't a way of making the motorist a cash cow. Government guidance suggests "The primary purpose of penalty charges is to encourage compliance with parking restrictions. In pursuit of this, enforcement authorities should adopt the lowest charge level consistent with a high level of public acceptability and compliance."

OnYerBike wrote:

I think technically Hamster is right - the regulation regarding zig-zags applies to the "carriageway" while the regulation regarding double yellows applies to the whole "road".

Zig-zags: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/27/made

Yellows: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made (see diag 1018.1) 

I must be misremembering the exact circumstances of that incident then, and rewatching is difficult because i don't know which video it's from. Thanks for the links

Thanks for the local knowledge.  In the most recent video though I'm not seeing any cycling infra - indeed there barely seems to be a path (e.g. over bridge at the beginning).

I'd be unlikely to take to most dual carriageways - probably here too.  However I'm also motivated to avoid concentrations of people.  Mostly for "making progress" but many people seem spooked by cyclists.  Dogs and children are unpredictable.

The real issue is (I'm assuming - without local knowledge) we've taken most of the road space, allocated it for motor vehicles then tacked on some paths.  Then "signed them into cycle paths".  (Planners!  Stop mixing pedestrians and cyclists - it can "work" and it's safe but it's not pleasant for either).  Or alternatively installed new roads (a bypass?) without thinking about whether this would be a useful route for non-drivers.

At least there's the (historic, presumably) grade-separated roundabout.  Is it easy to access though or more "get the non-motorists out of the way"?

Just as many normal people in cars get frustrated waiting behind cyclists, or horse riders, or tractors, not all cyclists want to repeatedly slow down to 5-8 mph.  Or stop frequently.  Or get on and off their bikes.  Cyclists - unlike drivers - have to expend actual energy as well as mental energy stop-starting.  Riding on roads they're only endangering themselves. Unlike the impatient / aggressive taxi driver...

The second clip is not on a dual carriageway and other drivers show it is perfectly possible to pass wide and safe.

I'd guess that the driver didn't recognise the rider so more a habitual deliberate close pass.

Some false equivalences here. A mile stretch of road you can do at 20mph takes three minutes. Slowed to an average around 10mph at best on a shared path that stretch will take six minutes. Repeat that process several times over a ten mile commute and you start to make a big difference to that commute's feasibility.

Does not really compare with motorists being slowed for a few seconds, generally only to arrive at the back of the same queue slightly later, at which point they actually lose no time at all.

That is not a particularly convincing argument: how likely is it that on a shared path you will encounter a mile stretch of solid pedestrians, which is the assumption you have based your initial calculation on? This would then have to happen several times (even more unlikely) over a ten-mile commute to reach the 'big difference' you think it would make. I think all you have proved is my initial point that too many cyclists are unprepared to slow down their journey under any circumstances, but fully expect others to do so for them.  

Also, choosing to cycle in the bus lane over a perfectly viable adjacent cycle path (as demonstrated in the video) will mostly lead to slowing down buses (in this case the Thornhill Park and Ride bus), which in turn means you are slowing down multiple passengers, who have chosen a far more sustainable and cleaner form of transport than driving.     

Bobbylala wrote:

Also, choosing to cycle in the bus lane over a perfectly viable adjacent cycle path (as demonstrated in the video) will mostly lead to slowing down buses (in this case the Thornhill Park and Ride bus), which in turn means you are slowing down multiple passengers, who have chosen a far more sustainable and cleaner form of transport than driving.     

To be pedantic - if it's a park and ride bus they've chosen a somewhat more efficient form of transport for part of their journey.  Yes, many of these serve as "normal" buses for part of the route too.  The main point with park and ride for me is saving a ton of congestion / city driving / city centre parking.  That's a good enough justification on its own for me without getting into how much cleaner or "sustainable"* the bus is.

Unfortunately the equilibrium at the moment is often between public transport for short journeys and bike / scooter etc. rather than bike and car.  Looking at NL it seems a way round this is to encourage multi-modal transport e.g. bike + train etc.  Could even be car (to park and ride) + rental bike.

It's difficult to shift people from cars full stop though - "go anywhere, any time, with no effort in your own private space, carrying several others if needed".

* Bus transport should be more energy efficient per passenger than cars - although much less so than rail.  It's quite variable depending on how full the services run on average.  "Sustainable" - another buzzword which sometimes signals no thought or frank greenwashing.  Sustainable diesel buses!  Sustainable electric cars powered by coal-or-gas-fired power station produced sustainable electricity!  Frequently usage of this appears to mean - charitably - "out of sight, out of mind".

Bobbylala wrote:

Also, choosing to cycle in the bus lane over a perfectly viable adjacent cycle path (as demonstrated in the video) will mostly lead to slowing down buses (in this case the Thornhill Park and Ride bus), which in turn means you are slowing down multiple passengers, who have chosen a far more sustainable and cleaner form of transport than driving.     

...for part of their journey...

The A40 at the point where the incident occurred is 30mph limit (50mph preceding) and there's a bus lane the whole way. The blue bus lane signs include taxis and a cycle icon. It should be perfectly safe for a cyclist to use this route. The cyclist did not hold anyone up, there was plenty of road space for everyone.

Yes, there's a decent cycle lane running alongside, segregated from pededstrians, which is a rarity. But I can understand if there are groups of people walking all over it, then the bus lane is the better option.

As for using underpasses, they are not always the safer option and usually a lot slower. I once did a comparison riding the 9 mile journey into town, one using the most direct roads, the other using cycle paths and underpasses wherever possible. The road route took me 28mins, the mixed route took 42mins!

Actually seeing separation from pedestrians on the cycle path - that's an amazing (for the UK) design!  I mean compared with e.g. NL it's 3rd class but I can see it was marked (only at the start, now faded...), it's not as narrow as most.  A bus stop bypass.  The pedestrians are in the bushes though.

So in terms of the parts of the design they've got the right idea there.  However if you check the end you're right back sharing with pedestrians.

Sometimes we *do* do it right, but only where it's easy.  Which is a start I guess...

Yep, where it's easy. Cars do it right when it's easy (most of the time). It's just many drivers' heads explode at the mental effort of adjusting their approach around a cyclist.

Underpasses - UK ones tend to be ... grimy and sometimes hard to navigate.  Grade separation can be an excellent solution though, especially if motor traffic has to change height.  Or more so than cyclists / pedestrians.  If bikes have to change level going down then up is preferred.

Under: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2020/05/13/a-grade-separated-roundabo...

Over: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2022/01/05/a-new-cycling-viaduct-over...

Going down then up only works if you can actually carry that speed into/out of the underpass. A lot of the under passes near me have 90 degree turns or blind junctions so you have to reduce speed and grind back up out of it.

and yes, quite unusual to have a wide cycle track and segregated pedestrians, only Stevenage seems to do that in any sort of quantity.