Video: Richmond Park driver intimidates female cyclist by beeping horn before overtake

The driver is in a BMW. That's why.

That doesn't apply to the video at all... There's a constant stream of cars, so cyclists certainly don't need to be "warned" that there is another car coming. And the beep comes from a driver who overtakes against oncoming traffic and then passes too close. The correct action would've been to wait for 2 seconds for the long gap in the oncoming traffic and then overtake properly, giving the cyclists wide space, with absolutely no need to "warn" the cyclist.

If you can't overtake safely, then you shouldn't overtake at all and not just sound the horn while overtaking dangerously.

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

That doesn't apply to the video at all... There's a constant stream of cars, so cyclists certainly don't need to be "warned" that there is another car coming. And the beep comes from a driver who overtakes against oncoming traffic and then passes too close. The correct action would've been to wait for 2 seconds for the long gap in the oncoming traffic and then overtake properly, giving the cyclists wide space, with absolutely no need to "warn" the cyclist.

If you can't overtake safely, then you shouldn't overtake at all and not just sound the horn while overtaking dangerously.

You are misinterpreting what a correct "warning" is. I am not talking about "I'm here, get out the way" (that comes under the classification of the driver being a prick as per my first comment), what I'm saying as a very brief tap on the horn a distance back, or if you have been behind for a while then immediately before the overtake, so that a rider is aware of your presense and that you are about to pass is both correct and legal. 

The video (to me) is not clear enough and there is no sound, what I can make out is the rider looking back just before the driver starts to overtake so, I'm guessing, the driver correctly made the cyclist aware with the horn at that moment. Yes I get the impression that the gap was too small and they passed too close BUT as I said the video is from too far away and no way of knowing if they lent on the horn as they went past.

I do exactly the same as hawkinspeter when I'm on the bike. When I'm in the car I'll either tap the horn or flash the lights for a split second before overtaking anything if I'm in any doubt they know I'm there (the exception being over taking a horse where the horn could startle it even from 50 yards away).

Bill McLaren wrote:

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

That doesn't apply to the video at all... There's a constant stream of cars, so cyclists certainly don't need to be "warned" that there is another car coming. And the beep comes from a driver who overtakes against oncoming traffic and then passes too close. The correct action would've been to wait for 2 seconds for the long gap in the oncoming traffic and then overtake properly, giving the cyclists wide space, with absolutely no need to "warn" the cyclist.

If you can't overtake safely, then you shouldn't overtake at all and not just sound the horn while overtaking dangerously.

You are misinterpreting what a correct "warning" is. I am not talking about "I'm here, get out the way" (that comes under the classification of the driver being a prick as per my first comment), what I'm saying as a very brief tap on the horn a distance back, or if you have been behind for a while then immediately before the overtake, so that a rider is aware of your presense and that you are about to pass is both correct and legal. 

The video (to me) is not clear enough and there is no sound, what I can make out is the rider looking back just before the driver starts to overtake so, I'm guessing, the driver correctly made the cyclist aware with the horn at that moment. Yes I get the impression that the gap was too small and they passed too close BUT as I said the video is from too far away and no way of knowing if they lent on the horn as they went past.

Are we looking at the same video? The one in the article has clear sound, the horn is audible at about 42 seconds and it's pretty clear that there's a lot of traffic and it's not an empty road where a warning might possibly be useful.
Also the horn is followed by a close pass and a horn is no excuse for a close pass, no?

Ah, there are actually two different videos... But in both, the horn appears inappropriate to me....

Bill McLaren wrote:

You do realise that the only time it is legal to use a horn in a car is to warn other road users of your presence i.e. the same as a bell on a bike. The correct headline here is:

Richmond Park driver warns female cyclist they are about to overtake by beeping horn. 

Now if the motorist is doing a close pass and basically being a prick, that is different. 

I suggest motorist and cyclist alike go read a rather good article about horn use:  https://www.iam-bristol.org.uk/index.php/articles/associate-s-guide/33-horn

That's usually the excuse. I can usually tell that they mean to be helpful when it's a pip-pip, but even then it's unnecessary.

My blanket request would be that drivers don't do it. Cyclists can be a bit like horses and are easily startled. I know you're there, and I have every faith you are going to overtake safely and legally - just carry on and do your thing with minimum fuss please.

...and moreover, if they are overtaking with a clear 1.5m margin, where is the need to "warn" anyone? One more time, you don't need to "warn" anyone that you are about to do something safe and ordinary.

Unless you truly believe that the cyclist is likely to veer 1.5m into your path, what is there to warn about?

Bill McLaren wrote:

You do realise that the only time it is legal to use a horn in a car is to warn other road users of your presence i.e. the same as a bell on a bike. The correct headline here is:

Richmond Park driver warns female cyclist they are about to overtake by beeping horn. 

Now if the motorist is doing a close pass and basically being a prick, that is different. 

I suggest motorist and cyclist alike go read a rather good article about horn use:  https://www.iam-bristol.org.uk/index.php/articles/associate-s-guide/33-horn

The hazard in this article is the approaching motorist.  The author suggested to the driver to sound the horn - which is only to be used to warn of danger - to warn of a danger that he was entirely able to negate.  The author states that it might not even have been possible to overtake them riding two abreast - so it clear is not a safe situation overtake them if they were to single out.  It is actually the perfect time for a pair of cyclists to ride two abreast.

Given that IAM is always going on about defensive driving, you would think their members might know a thing or two about defensive cycling, but clearly not.

The only reason I can see to use the horn there is if the cyclist wobbled and looked like they were moving out at just the wrong moment. I doubt that happened, but I'm only getting a video too grainy to see.

As for general use of the horn, while it's not in the Highway Code, there is a convention that 'beeeeeeeeep' is what you do when someone's doing something wrong/dangerous, and 'pip-pip' is what you do to communicate.

Also, I've had cars where the horn buttons were so badly placed - yes, Rover group, I'm, talking about you - I'd accidentally hit them embarassingly often. V, v, unlikely in this case, but it's surprising how often you see someone do it, making themself jump.

Bill McLaren wrote:

Now if the motorist is doing a close pass and basically being a prick, that is different. 

Long blast like that, yep, we're in your "different' case. A quick toot to say "you may not be aware I'm here" is not what we see in the video.

"It's ludicrous that a park is used for through traffic."

It's pretty normal as a feature of old, large parks. There are no alternative routes for through traffic which aren't also completely unsuitable, near Richmond Park.

Never having knowingly been that near the park, but what's wrong with the roads around the park specifically?

Or why dont the A308, A3 & Roehampton lane provide the same function for traffic ?

Awavey wrote:

Never having knowingly been that near the park, but what's wrong with the roads around the park specifically? Or why dont the A308, A3 & Roehampton lane provide the same function for traffic ?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with them, save that they too are clogged up with traffic and depending on where you're going the routes could be slightly longer.

The park is still much better now than it used to be - restricting through traffic to two sides of the loop has made it far more user-friendly, and I'm sure there are still more families and leisurely cyclists than pre-pandemic. However every time I go I'm overtaken by a number of vehicles doing in excess of 20mph and making risky overtakes, even when I'm cycling at around 20mph myself.

Dave Dave wrote:

"It's ludicrous that a park is used for through traffic."

It's pretty normal as a feature of old, large parks. There are no alternative routes for through traffic which aren't also completely unsuitable, near Richmond Park.

That is demonstrably untrue - the Kingston Road - AKA the A3 literally runs parallel to the Southern perimeter of the park - having driven on it on Saturday morning I can confirm it was entirely suitable for my motor vehicle. 

Further the A307 makes a very good North/South route from Roehampton.  I query what you think a suitable road for motor vehicle is if you think driving through a park is more suitable than driving along an A-road (and the A3 is even dual carriageway for a decent chunk of that stretch!).

Carior wrote:

Dave Dave wrote:

"It's ludicrous that a park is used for through traffic."

It's pretty normal as a feature of old, large parks. There are no alternative routes for through traffic which aren't also completely unsuitable, near Richmond Park.

That is demonstrably untrue - the Kingston Road - AKA the A3 literally runs parallel to the Southern perimeter of the park - having driven on it on Saturday morning I can confirm it was entirely suitable for my motor vehicle. 

Further the A307 makes a very good North/South route from Roehampton.  I query what you think a suitable road for motor vehicle is if you think driving through a park is more suitable than driving along an A-road (and the A3 is even dual carriageway for a decent chunk of that stretch!).

The A3 runs right through the park, splitting it into two pieces! It's hardly an alternative route if we're closing it to traffic!

The 307 is just local suburban high street. There is way too much local/through traffic for the area's roads to handle. Richmond park is just a symptom.

Dave Dave wrote:

The A3 runs right through the park, splitting it into two pieces! It's hardly an alternative route if we're closing it to traffic! The 307 is just local suburban high street.

The A3 runs between Richmond park and Putney heath/Putney cemetary/putney common extension. No part of Richmond park is on the south side of the A3. This is quite clear by the lack of any royal parks fancing (identified with the crown motiff) around any of the green space to the south.

But even if you do want to take an intepretation of all green space in south London being part of Richmond park. It's clear no one is calling for the A3 to be closed. 

Stop being ridiculous.

Dave Dave wrote:

There is way too much local/through traffic for the area's roads to handle. Richmond park is just a symptom.

This is not a reason to turn the park roads, which were not designed to be busy thoroughfares into prt of the general road network. Let the symptom of too much traffic be congestion for those insisting on driving private vehicles and not destruction of what should be a quiet green space

You're maddeningly inconsistent. Why not close the A3 - or at least cover it with a tunnel?

" Let the symptom of too much traffic be congestion for those insisting on driving private vehicles and not destruction of what should be a quiet green space"

Quite. No idea why you're arguing against that idea.

So called out that the A3 doesn't go right through the middle of Richmond Park so wouldn't be covered in "banning through traffic" and blames someone else as maddeningly inconsistent?

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

So called out that the A3 doesn't go right through the middle of Richmond Park so wouldn't be covered in "banning through traffic" and blames someone else as maddeningly inconsistent?

 

Our fave Dave is consistently inconsistent

Dave Dave wrote:

Carior wrote:

Dave Dave wrote:

Quote:

It's ludicrous that a park is used for through traffic.

It's pretty normal as a feature of old, large parks. There are no alternative routes for through traffic which aren't also completely unsuitable, near Richmond Park.

That is demonstrably untrue - the Kingston Road - AKA the A3 literally runs parallel to the Southern perimeter of the park - having driven on it on Saturday morning I can confirm it was entirely suitable for my motor vehicle. 

Further the A307 makes a very good North/South route from Roehampton.  I query what you think a suitable road for motor vehicle is if you think driving through a park is more suitable than driving along an A-road (and the A3 is even dual carriageway for a decent chunk of that stretch!).

The A3 runs right through the park, splitting it into two pieces! It's hardly an alternative route if we're closing it to traffic! The 307 is just local suburban high street. There is way too much local/through traffic for the area's roads to handle. Richmond park is just a symptom.

That doesn't mean that the roads are unsuitable. It means that the traffic is unsuitable. Which is a different problem, that requires a different solution.

mdavidford wrote:

Dave Dave wrote:

Carior wrote:

Dave Dave wrote:

Quote:

It's ludicrous that a park is used for through traffic.

It's pretty normal as a feature of old, large parks. There are no alternative routes for through traffic which aren't also completely unsuitable, near Richmond Park.

That is demonstrably untrue - the Kingston Road - AKA the A3 literally runs parallel to the Southern perimeter of the park - having driven on it on Saturday morning I can confirm it was entirely suitable for my motor vehicle. 

Further the A307 makes a very good North/South route from Roehampton.  I query what you think a suitable road for motor vehicle is if you think driving through a park is more suitable than driving along an A-road (and the A3 is even dual carriageway for a decent chunk of that stretch!).

The A3 runs right through the park, splitting it into two pieces! It's hardly an alternative route if we're closing it to traffic! The 307 is just local suburban high street. There is way too much local/through traffic for the area's roads to handle. Richmond park is just a symptom.

That doesn't mean that the roads are unsuitable. It means that the traffic is unsuitable. Which is a different problem, that requires a different solution.

And it certainly doesn't mean that, if one road is considered "unsuitable", we should open up sensitive routes that are even less suitable.

Dave Dave wrote:

It's pretty normal as a feature of old, large parks. There are no alternative routes for through traffic which aren't also completely unsuitable, near Richmond Park.

The nearby routes only get clogged up because of people using the park as a rat run.  The only reason for the volume of traffic on Priory Lane is people who have used RP as a cut through to the South Circular.  Likewise Clarence Lane is full of drivers trying to avoid the junction at the bottom of Roehampton Lane.

One of the most offensive sights is isling cars backed up at Roehampton Gate on a winter morning waiting for the gates to open.