Viral video of driver refusing to stop for five-year-old cyclist debated on Jeremy Vine's Channel 5 show

He says somewhere that there's too much, and knowing that three quarters of them are drivel...

Awavey wrote:

The bit that confuses me with all the polemic this has caused, is the outrage because it's a kid put in that position ? Or that it's a cyclist ?

Because I can get passed like that everytime I ride a bike on the road, to the point I dont think the vast majority of drivers think its remotely a problem at all to pass cyclists like that, their view will always be they havent hit you however near they get, which ultimately means anyone riding a bike be that adults or kids will be subjected to those types of passes all the time. I've even had learner drivers being taught to drive through gaps like that if I'm approaching them.

So actually I'd probably in this instance have just timed my arrival so the car got through first, just because I know the car wont be stopping for me.

As per previous comment* I'm outraged on behalf of anyone who based on my understanding has the priority. But also think that it takes a special kind of mentality to drive at a child.

I will happily give way where the motorist gives an indication of slowing down or acknowledges my presence. I unhappily give way when I think I am going to die. I have stood my ground when I've quite frankly had enough (mostly Hemdean Road, which I know a few on here know).

*not supposed to be "as per my last email" vibes

**Edit for the locals. I ALWAYS stand my ground on St Barnabas where the obstructions are on the other lane but the motorists think they can come at me because they are late for school drop off.

Sorry hadnt seen your comment, t'internet isnt working too great here.

I agree it takes a special kind of driver to drive at a kid like that, but swap the kid out and replace with an adult, is it still a problem ? would most adult cyclists even have posted it to go viral if it was them and not their child at risk ?

As for the question you posed in your earlier comment, my belief is that if the obstruction is your side, you cede priority, if both sides are blocked like this then its debatebly about who gets there first and has started their manoeuvre first takes priority but backed up with you mustn't ever assume you have priority or that others will cede, but that's why I said I'd engineer arriving later to the obstruction so as to allow the driver to do what I fully expect them to do anyway.

But that's life experience a young kid probably hasnt got yet.

I had an encounter like this (on a narrower road, just me - no small child).I was on the left hand side of the road, no parked vehicles on my side, with a car came towards me, on my side of the road, passing parked cars. I purposely slowed down opposite a gap to my right so she could pull in, but she didn’t. I stopped (I had nowhere else to go) and she stopped and looked confused. I pointed towards the empty space on her left and she slowly drove into it. Amazing the amount of drivers that genuinely believe they have priority, whatever, because you are on a bike and they are in a car. 

a1white wrote:

I had an encounter like this (on a narrower road, just me - no small child).I was on the left hand side of the road, no parked vehicles on my side, with a car came towards me, on my side of the road, passing parked cars. I purposely slowed down opposite a gap to my right so she could pull in, but she didn’t. I stopped (I had nowhere else to go) and she stopped and looked confused. I pointed towards the empty space on her left and she slowly drove into it. Amazing the amount of drivers that genuinely believe they have priority, whatever, because you are on a bike and they are in a car. 

I get that a lot.

You are making up rules; there is no centre line, so it's a bit like a zipper merge where there are no lines; where there's only room for one vehicle because of parked vehicles, it's first there, first to go; where there's room for both to pass, then both can go. The motorist in this video clearly slowed when passing; he didn't 'horrifically drive at a child'.

grOg wrote:

You are making up rules; there is no centre line, so it's a bit like a zipper merge where there are no lines; where there's only room for one vehicle because of parked vehicles, it's first there, first to go; where there's room for both to pass, then both can go. The motorist in this video clearly slowed when passing; he didn't 'horrifically drive at a child'.

The kid went first dickwad.

Good call.  I think other countries have this - I believe that in (at least parts of) the Netherlands it's "you can only park where marked" as opposed to "you can park anywhere except where marked".  (I know in the UK you can sign areas as no parking so you don't have to paint absolutely everywhere but that's less common).

So in the UK we end up with signs and paint and badly / illegally parked cars everywhere.

Robert Weetman has a good article on streets comparing UK / NL (covers other aspects also).

In the UK we also have broad exceptions for double yellows for eg Blue Badges which can be very problematic.

BOLAS on mate.  I was justing.  Gotta delivery pal.

It's very common in Australia for side streets to have parking both sides that only allows for one vehicle to get through; local councils see it as one way of discouraging rat running; through traffic using side streets instead of main roads.

I do like his quote (memed)

"There isn't a War on Drivers; there's a War on Incompetent Drivers".

Great - when is the campaign starting though?  Haven't seen much sign of the resistance thus far...

I saw this earlier in the week, and there were lots of comments along the lines of 'the child shouldn't be on the road and it's the father's fault if anything happens' Also a lot of how the child should have given way (?).