This left me quite shaken last night, and i was not even involved.

[shouldbeinbed]

That is horrible. Happy the Boris bike guy got out of it unscathed.

The barging nobber should hang his head in shame.

 

[User16625]

That is horrible. Happy the Boris bike guy got out of it unscathed.

The barging nobber should hang his head in shame.

What about the rest of his body?

With a bit of luck he will fall into a working combine harvester within the next week but sods law he wont.

 

[Lonestar]

Shockingly bad but I can't say I'm really surprised.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Maybe its a video we should keep on our phones to show to the mouthbreathers that demand we use cycle lanes just because they are there.

Its a good example of why they can be more dangerous for the rider and the motorised traffic; who just want to get from A to B without killing us; should the unexpected occur: Not necessarily a raging pillock on a bike trying to kill fellow cyclist but a big puddle or pothole or random piece of debris or dopey iPed suddenly needing evasive action.

 

[mjr]

Maybe its a video we should keep on our phones to show to the mouthbreathers that demand we use cycle lanes just because they are there.

Oh for crying out loud: how exactly would that have been different if it had been in a carriageway lane? The stupid barger rode into the other cyclist rather than brake, or shoulder-check and move right to overtake properly and they might have still done that. In a carriageway lane, the following vehicle would have been much more likely to be a motor vehicle than a cycle with a camera, so it could have ended much worse even though they didn't fall.

 

[glenn forger]

that stupid blue paint channels you, drivers think no rider should leave it and nodders think you overtake in the lane. It's worse than useless. Super highway my arse.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Oh for crying out loud: how exactly would that have been different if it had been in a carriageway lane? The stupid barger rode into the other cyclist rather than brake, or shoulder-check and move right to overtake properly and they might have still done that. In a carriageway lane, the following vehicle would have been much more likely to be a motor vehicle than a cycle with a camera, so it could have ended much worse even though they didn't fall.

I think you've missed the point I hoped I'd made.

Had either/both been in the carriageway, not slavishly in the thin cycle lane then there would have been more room to enable a safe and sensible manoeuvre and they would have been clearly in a road position that didn't have the truck as such a close coincidentally passing factor, not to criticise the truck driver for just driving along a road with IMO an unsafe cycle lane but had the cyclists been interacting in front of it rather beside it and if it was overtaking then in all likelihood there would have been a greater lateral gap for the overtake / wobble.

My gripe is with the mentality of those that see any cycle lane, however poor or good, as mandatory or worthy of abuse if not being used without any grasp that they're not all wine and roses.

 

[winjim]

The manoeuvre does look to me like it could be an attempt, possibly even an involuntary one, to stay within the cycle lane.

 

[mjr]

Had either/both been in the carriageway, not slavishly in the thin cycle lane then there would have been more room to enable a safe and sensible manoeuvre and they would have been clearly in a road position that didn't have the truck as such a close coincidentally passing factor, not to criticise the truck driver for just driving along a road with IMO an unsafe cycle lane but had the cyclists been interacting in front of it rather beside it and if it was overtaking then in all likelihood there would have been a greater lateral gap for the overtake / wobble.

Are you imagining cyclists on such a busy route as riding single-file in a full carriageway lane to themselves? If they'd been in a carriageway lane, there would probably either have been cyclists riding side-by-side and the barger would still have rear-ended someone AND put them sideways across the path of any following motor vehicle, or if the lane was wider, some cyclists would have been hemmed into secondary by motorists overtaking in-lane and the barger would probably still have rear-ended one of them.

My gripe is with the mentality of those that see any cycle lane, however poor or good, as mandatory or worthy of abuse if not being used without any grasp that they're not all wine and roses.

My gripe is not with those imaginary demons of your mind - it is with dangerous road users like the barger. Although substandard, the cycle lane there is mostly an irrelevance to the downright crap cycling.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Are you imagining cyclists on such a busy route as riding single-file in a full carriageway lane to themselves? If they'd been in a carriageway lane, there would probably either have been cyclists riding side-by-side and the barger would still have rear-ended someone AND put them sideways across the path of any following motor vehicle, or if the lane was wider, some cyclists would have been hemmed into secondary by motorists overtaking in-lane and the barger would probably still have rear-ended one of them.


My gripe is not with those imaginary demons of your mind - it is with dangerous road users like the barger. Although substandard, the cycle lane there is mostly an irrelevance to the downright crap cycling.

You seem to be determined to deliberately misunderstand and draw your own inferences that are frankly ridiculous. Over and out.

 

[TheJDog]

But im not going to name him.

Don't name him, but do send the footage to the police with his name. He needs a good talking to.

 

[I like Skol]

Glad I do not ride in London. Southern Twonks!

 

[mjr]

The manoeuvre does look to me like it could be an attempt, possibly even an involuntary one, to stay within the cycle lane.

If so and there wasn't a cycle lane, the nobber would probably have attempted, possibly even involuntarily, to stay within whatever lane he was in and rammed anyone in front.

You seem to be determined to deliberately misunderstand and draw your own inferences that are frankly ridiculous. Over and out.

Frankly ridiculous is being determined to blame some paint for dangerous cycling.

 

[lejogger]

Wow, watched this a few times now, and it's insane!... but my honest appraisal is that it was almost certainly not intentional.

If you watch closely it seems to be the combination of a slight swerve for a man hole cover plus a quick over-shoulder check that he does which seems to somehow unbalance him once he suddenly finds himself far closer to the Boris bike in front than he expected. By then he's committed to the overtake and too close to move out sufficiently whilst likely unwilling to swerve because of the approaching truck.

Regardless, it's a woeful bit of cycling, compounded unforgivably by the lack of acknowledgment to the poor rider he's just hit. Could have been so much worse.

It's almost certainly the guy on the right of the lane at the traffic lights, with the same 'Rapha' styling light band around the left thigh.

 

[jonny jeez]

Glad I do not ride in London. Southern Twonks!

So are we.

Cant insert smilies from my phone, sorry