Jeremy Vine.

[Time Waster]

Are we watching the same video? This one with the Waitrose truck?

View attachment 647116

That's a regular all-traffic carriageway lane they're in. There's no way it's 1.5m wide. It's probably closer to the 2.2m minimum than the 3.7m recommended, but even 2.2m is OK for cycling two abreast, isn't it? Fark, 2.5m is considered OK for two cyclists to pass each other in opposite direction at full chat IIRC.

If you'd like more confirmation that it's not 1.5m wide, at 14 seconds in, you can see the famous old tube trains of The Village Underground in the top-left of shot. That means they're about here on Great Eastern Street, heading north: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.523...4!1s1IAnhRa7gFj1Ju2kvdW89w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


The only time when I spotted the inside riders on the outermost double red line is when Waitrose driver passes them, causing the outside riders to move in slightly, which in turn causes the inside riders to move in. Within acceptable safety margins IMO, especially as all but one rider seem to be on steady and sturdy hybrid/MTB/city bikes, not twitchy HDAU road bikes (remember the famous collision between a city bike and a road bike in Blackfriars Underpass: city bike wobbled a bit, road bike cartwheeled).


I agree with you about the futility of being legally correct if there's a collision, but I completely disagree that the riders are creating significant danger for themselves. They are using the road normally, legally and, as far as I can tell, in accordance with current advice in the Highway Code and the National Standard for Cycle Training. The danger is created by the close pass and I feel that your views on positioning may be mistaken due to misestimating the lane width.

If you spin around in that Google maps link you see the same building on the right as in the video, the curved end one. That's also a vauxhall vivaro van of the same model as I have. It is well within the lane markings where the cyclists in the video were riding. Since that van is 1.94m or 2.205m with mirrors included you can estimate that the lane in question is at least 2,2m wide probably a bit wider. Certainly not a 1.5m wide lane but likely 2.5m wide I reckon. Plenty wide enough for 2 abreast.

 

[Time Waster]

That's not the way it works. The driver has to deal properly with what is in front of him.

My point was that I hope he uses that defence as it would be so easy to shut that defence down. That once that happens the press report it so other motorists can hopefully make note of it.

 

[iandg]

My point was that I hope he uses that defence as it would be so easy to shut that defence down. That once that happens the press report it so other motorists can hopefully make note of it.

They weren't in front of him. They were in a different lane and he stayed in his. 😉

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Late to this but just watched the vid' and I don't think that would've bothered me tbh.

 

[Time Waster]

Does it matter what the cyclists did if the issue with the petition is about getting JV sacked for being wrong for reporting a hgv driver who close passed cyclists?

That's not the way it works. The driver has to deal properly with what is in front of him.

My point was that I hope he uses that defence as it would be so easy to shut that defence down. That once that happens the press report it so other motorists can hopefully make note of it.

They weren't in front of him. They were in a different lane and he stayed in his.

Sorry about the multiple quoting it's not work quite right but I think you can follow the posts OK.

Basically I didn't say anything about lane position just that there seems to me that there's a lot of excusing the truck driver because the cyclists were not doing things perfectly right in people's views. If the driver used that as a defence it would not work I'm pretty certain. So I hope that if it ever went to court he used it as a defence and lost in a way that got widely reported so that motorists and cyclists become aware of the case through mass media.

IMHO we need as many successful close pass driving offence prosecutions as possible and for them to be widely reported. Without such prosecutions and publicity understanding of close passing issues will not get through to all but the worst drivers.

 

[iandg]

Late to this but just watched the vid' and I don't think that would've bothered me tbh.

Ditto. I was the sort of cyclist who used to happily weave between the wing mirrors of slow moving traffic switching from different lanes to join the flow that matched my speed when I worked in and commuted to West Bromwich.

Having lived on Isle of Lewis/Harris for 21 years with many miles on single track roads I've also become comfortable with very close passing traffic. In most cases a car would have needed to be in the ditch bog to have given me 1.5m

 

[PK99]

Indeed. The argument is that they merely clarified where the dividing line between careful and careless already was. In which case, it's even more difficult to see a court choosing to disagree with the legislature.

I'm inclined to think that you do not properly understand the English law making process.

 

[classic33]

Yes, and all the traffic in lane 2 in the video should pull back over to the left once they've finished passing things in the left lane. Hence they're overtaking by any definition.


The driving theory test certainly could. There seem to be far too many drivers about labouring under a misapprehension that passing other vehicles isn't overtaking if there's magic paint on the road.


Find it if you're so sure.


Same direction = overtake = 1.5m.

And if the lanes are marked for direction of travel?

 

[Alex321]

How are you reasoning that?

Because most lanes in most urban areas are not wide enough to give 1.5m between vehicles.

No, it's very relevant. Those lanes are designed so it should be safe for SOME traffic. We know that there are many lanes which are too narrow for use by larger vehicles. Sometimes there are even signs reminding drivers of large vehicles to straddle lanes.

Sometimes, but not often in town, and not usually intended for regular width trucks/.

So what's the problem with that? There's no God-given right to drive at the speed limit all the time and it's a 20mph road anyway, so there won't be a big speed difference between fastest and slowest. Plus, not all vehicles are so wide that they cannot leave 1.5m gap and even the wider ones could overtake when there's gaps in the oncoming traffic.

The problem with that is that it isn't the way those types of road are designed to be used. Those roads are intended for the traffic in each marked lane to be able to move independently of each other, and to basically be able to ignore traffic in adjoining lanes, so long as they are staying in their current lane.

So what would you call it? Drag racing?

I can't imagine why you could even conceive of calling it any type of racing.

I would just describe it as traffic in separate lanes moving independently.

Overtaking is when you come up behind another vehicle, pull out to overtake it, then pull back in when the manoeuvre is complete (which may mean after overtaking several vehicles).

Yes, the road designers share some responsibility for producing a trap of a layout, probably under pressure from politicians who spent decades pushing to maximise throughput at the expense of everything including lives, but I feel that the silly trucker had two options more than the cyclists to avoid the danger: wait until it was possible to steer wider; or not overtake. From the looks of them, the cyclists could not really speed up to 20mph to make overtaking unnecessary and legally impossible; and riding narrower only works up to a point (once singled out and in secondary, they couldn't go narrower safely) and would be against current advice anyway.

No, it wouldn't be against current advice. I don't have a clue what advice you think it is against.

But even without going single file, they could have ridden further from the line.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Poor situational awareness by the police officer. Those lanes are smaller, the big vehicles struggle to keep in lane and that vehicle remained in its lane. The next lane is opposing traffic so no chance to move there. There was not need for officer to cycle close to the edge and could have taken the cue from the riders in front of him.

He looks new to cycling on busy roads. A bit wobbly as well.

 

[boydj]

Ditto. I was the sort of cyclist who used to happily weave between the wing mirrors of slow moving traffic switching from different lanes to join the flow that matched my speed when I worked in and commuted to West Bromwich.

Having lived on Isle of Lewis/Harris for 21 years with many miles on single track roads I've also become comfortable with very close passing traffic. In most cases a car would have needed to be in the ditch bog to have given me 1.5m

Cars don't wait in passing places for cyclists? Or vice-versa? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

[iandg]

Cars don't wait in passing places for cyclists? Or vice-versa? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I was always courteous to other road users with regard to passing places - some motorists (a minority) were not

 

[Ming the Merciless]

but even 2.2m is OK for cycling two abreast, isn't it?

A modern Volkswagen Golf is 2 metres wide. The point of riding two abreast in that lane is to prevent some motorist thinking that’s is fine to overtake a single cyclist in that lane. If it was just one cyclist you’d be in the centre of that lane anyway. Two abreast removes any doubt that the lane isn’t wide enough for any motorist to overtake the cyclists.

 

[wafter]

I don't think it helps our cause that he's such a massive tosser..

 

[Gunk]

I don't think it helps our cause that he's such a massive tosser..

I agree, he is the equivalent of the Daily Mail does a radio show.