Horror Video Of Motorist Abuse!

[davefb]

I commute across it now but on the path. I've seen 3 people in my 20 years of living here ride over it on the road and all I can say it you're a lot braver than me! It's so dangerous - 2/3 of people I've seen have been touring (panniers etc) so they obviously weren't local, maybe doing a LEJOG or JOGLE and you can see the fear on their faces. The other guy was doing about 30 on a roadbike (all the gear, sky kit etc) so he wasn't too bad.

I only ride 3 1/2 miles each way but that bridge is by far the worst of it.

oops better correct this,, when "I" commuted, that would be from bolton.... it was long enough driving ...... though normally it was stop-start, was a few years back when they were fixing it....

 

[CopperCyclist]

whats a section 59..?

he's stopped on a no-stopping, in an amazingly dangerous position.. he's threatened someone ,driven dangerously by tailgaiting like that, driven dangerously by crossing across on the cyclist....

what do you have to do to get arrested?

I used to commute across that bridge... thats about the least traffic I've ever seen on it...

Section 59 is a notice put on a car that a complaint has been made that the car was bing used in an antisocial manner. Most usually utilised for the boy racers doing donuts in the local Tesco car park. If a driver has been issued with one warning, the next complaint gets the car seized, and the driver has to fork out about 150 quid (varies via recovery agent) to get it back.

I suspect the fact that the reporting cyclist asked for simply 'an apology' from the driver factored strongly into his lack of arrest.

 

[davefb]

I suspect the fact that the reporting cyclist asked for simply 'an apology' from the driver factored strongly into his lack of arrest.

would that mainly be because the "only evidence" was the video ? because surely stopping on that section of road, is an offence ? let alone pushing across like that..

I mean, surely it's at least a parking fine!

I suppose it just goes down to cost/benefit.. and that the section 59 route gets whats wanted , that he wont do it again....

 

[CopperCyclist]

would that mainly be because the "only evidence" was the video ? because surely stopping on that section of road, is an offence ? let alone pushing across like that..

I mean, surely it's at least a parking fine!

I suppose it just goes down to cost/benefit.. and that the section 59 route gets whats wanted , that he wont do it again....

I think the video could have been successfully used in a careless driving charge if that was what the cyclist wanted. Or to support a driver improvement scheme.

Whether the CPS would agree with me is another matter, but if it was me, and it was what the cyclist had requested, I'd had reported the driver and put it through.

 

[ufkacbln]

Nissan CashCow,,, says it all

 

[black'n'yellow]

Hi All,

A friend has just pointed this out on facebook:

View: http://youtu.be/FsybHRYcKmQ


Regards

Chris

Cyclist and car driver - both idiots. The car driver probably more so, but none of that needed to happen - and wouldn't have if the cyclist had shown a little more consideration...

 

[billy1561]

I've ridden with traffic on Runcorn Bridge a few times, and I won't be doing it again. I twice had cars pull alongside me in the next lane then just move across and shove me out the way, and I got some very close overtakes form HGVs. The approach roads aren't much fun either, especially if you're heading Runcorn-to-Widnes. So now if I go that way I'm a crazy rule breaker and ride on the footpath, along with perhaps 99% of the other cyclists who use the bridge.

BTW, my favourite place to cross the Mersey is cutting through a little business park by Warrington Bank Quay station - cars can't get through the bus gate so it's very quiet.

I use that bus gate too thanks to a lad on here who wisened me up. Not much use if you live or work in Rincorn tho..

 

[classic33]

I very much doubt he popped over from Thailand.

Its just that he's "advising" cyclists over here (UK) & in the same area(approx), that I thought he lived in the area. As a result of actually living in the area he was offering upto date advice!

 

[mr_hippo]

It is true that I have not cycled over the bridge for years. My first crossing of the Runcorn Gap was on the transporter bridge just before the road bridge was completed and l think it was on my first ride to Delamere. At one point in time there were actually 3 ways of crossing the Runcorn Gap - the road bridge, the transporter and the footbridge on the railway bridge. The last transporter car service was about 10:30 from Runcorn so the only way to get home was to walk across the railway footbridge. I do not know exactly when the footbridge closed but I'm guessing it was mid 60s. On a club run in the late 80s, we had a chance meeting with one of the engineers from British Rail and broached the subject of re-opening the footbridge but were told that it was not a viable project.
I do not know the official status of the footpath over the road bridge but has become through custom and use over the last 50 years shared use.

Maybe its time you gave serious consideration to your failing second sight. The cones as you pointed out were there, what cannot be seen in the video is when they started. Where they end, you can see quite clearly. You wish to give directions as to what someone should do. "How could you or anyone else who has no knowledge of the area help me? You do not know the terrain, road surface and camber, traffic flow or density." give advice on a change of route without knowing what that change will involve. Other than it takes the cyclist out of the drivers way, in this case.

When the video starts, the cyclist is already in the coned area. The change of route I suggested was to use the footpath.

BTW, my favourite place to cross the Mersey is cutting through a little business park by Warrington Bank Quay station - cars can't get through the bus gate so it's very quiet.

I am also familiar with that route but there was/is a ferry boat service up river around Thelwell. I last used it in the late 80s; it could hold about 3 cyclists and bikes.

 

[classic33]

Cones are normally used to mark out/off lanes that they may be working on/in. If we go on the simple basis that there are cones in the road, a fair share of major roads, near me would have them at some part of the day.

Cyclist is passed as the cones come to an end. Drivers first, legal!, chance to get past perhaps?

 

[Mugshot]

Cyclist and car driver - both idiots. The car driver probably more so, but none of that needed to happen - and wouldn't have if the cyclist had shown a little more consideration...

What would you suggest the cyclist did differently in order to be more considerate and less of an idiot?

 

[black'n'yellow]

What would you suggest the cyclist did differently in order to be more considerate and less of an idiot?

1. Find an alternative route. But failing that...
2. Not attempt an overtake on the outside of stationary/slow moving traffic
3. Keep left
4. After the bridge, get out of the middle of the road (see '3' above) to allow traffic past - there's plenty of room.

Doesn't excuse the driver's actions, but the whole thing could have been avoided.

 

[Mugshot]

1. Find an alternative route. But failing that...
2. Not attempt an overtake on the outside of stationary/slow moving traffic
3. Keep left
4. After the bridge, get out of the middle of the road (see '3' above) to allow traffic past - there's plenty of room.

Doesn't excuse the driver's actions, but the whole thing could have been avoided.

1) Why should he?
2) Bit of an odd move that I agree, but he didn't overtake anyone did he?
3) And encourage a close/dangerous overtake?
4) Looked to me as if he was moving to reasonable secondary pretty much as soon as the cones ended then got pushed to the side by the car. Even if he wasn't, whats wrong with the car/cars using the outside lane to overtake him?

 

[Hip Priest]

What I've learned from this thread is that it's ok to endanger the life of another road user if they 'hold you up'.

 

[black'n'yellow]

1) Why should he?

You asked me for my suggestion, and I told you.

2) Bit of an odd move that I agree, but he didn't overtake anyone did he?

No. But anyone comtemplating such a move is clearly an idiot with a death wish.

3) And encourage a close/dangerous overtake?

The guy already said there was no room to overtake. Moving left would have at least acknowledged that he was in the way of faster moving traffic.

4) Looked to me as if he was moving to reasonable secondary pretty much as soon as the cones ended then got pushed to the side by the car. Even if he wasn't, whats wrong with the car/cars using the outside lane to overtake him?

It didn't look like that to me.