Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
If you look at the screen grab you can see he is looking down at the point the MINI is obvious. It wasn't a lack of time to react, he didn't see the MINI as he wasn't looking.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
I'd have thought driver legally at fault - crossing traffic to make a turn, cyclist has right of way (assuming the cyclist is permitted to be overtaking on the inside, which I think he is).
Having said that, I'm pretty fucking cautious if I'm going up the inside of traffic as you're pretty invisible to any cars making a turn and if the traffic is queued you might have pedestrians zipping through, too. I'd not be flying up the inside like that. So I've got plenty of sympathy with the driver - should have been more cautious and gone more slowly, but even if he had been he'd have had a fair chance of netting a cyclist going at that speed.
Slower cyclist and slower car would have made braking (car) and braking/swerving to avoid (bike) possible.
Yep my thought was it is clearly the driver at fault. It may be an understandable error on his part but an error none the less. And the cyclist doesn't appear to me to be going particuarly fast or behaving incautiously.
I would also say the signs on the road are confusing. Initially he is in a cycle lane. That then ends but then just before he hits the car there is a cycle lane symbol on the road again although partially eroded.
When do you think the cyclist saw the car? Was there time to steer out of danger? It looks as if he is fiddling with his bottle-like object rather than looking ahead until the last minute (note the late and quickly-corrected turn of his front wheel the wrong way). One other question is whether the blue car has flashed the Mini, thus lulling its driver into a false sense of security.
The turning BMW Mini cannot be seen on the video until 1-1.5s before the collision, when the cyclist doing 15mph is approximately 6-10m away.
AFAICS there was nothing the cyclist (who had both hands back on his bars I think in the vid) could have done, unless we rely on things such as "the colliding cyclist was further forward so should have anticipated the lunge by the careless driver".
What he could have done was not been doing 15mph alongside stationary traffic approaching a junction.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
I'd have thought driver legally at fault - crossing traffic to make a turn, cyclist has right of way (assuming the cyclist is permitted to be overtaking on the inside, which I think he is).
Having said that, I'm pretty fucking cautious if I'm going up the inside of traffic as you're pretty invisible to any cars making a turn and if the traffic is queued you might have pedestrians zipping through, too. I'd not be flying up the inside like that. So I've got plenty of sympathy with the driver - should have been more cautious and gone more slowly, but even if he had been he'd have had a fair chance of netting a cyclist going at that speed.
Slower cyclist and slower car would have made braking (car) and braking/swerving to avoid (bike) possible.
Yep my thought was it is clearly the driver at fault. It may be an understandable error on his part but an error none the less. And the cyclist doesn't appear to me to be going particuarly fast or behaving incautiously.
I would also say the signs on the road are confusing. Initially he is in a cycle lane. That then ends but then just before he hits the car there is a cycle lane symbol on the road again although partially eroded.
When do you think the cyclist saw the car? Was there time to steer out of danger? It looks as if he is fiddling with his bottle-like object rather than looking ahead until the last minute (note the late and quickly-corrected turn of his front wheel the wrong way). One other question is whether the blue car has flashed the Mini, thus lulling its driver into a false sense of security.
The turning BMW Mini cannot be seen on the video until 1-1.5s before the collision, when the cyclist doing 15mph is approximately 6-10m away.
AFAICS there was nothing the cyclist (who had both hands back on his bars I think in the vid) could have done, unless we rely on things such as "the colliding cyclist was further forward so should have anticipated the lunge by the careless driver".
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
This is the same madness that believes a Jaffa Cake is a cake.
Wait until you guys hear that they make Jaffa Cake Minis.
Trump wants to go to jail. He thinks that politically it is how he wins. Absurdly he has failed so far, but with jail the only legal sanction remaining its no strikes and you're out time.
How does jail work when the convict has a secret service detail? You could argue that as the convict would be in the protection of the authorities then they are not needed. How do you apply legal sanction fairly and equally - as demanded by the constitution - when you can't apply it equally because of who the convict is?
If jailed the plan is to keep him in a courthouse holding cell for the time being
One suggestion I have seen is for a hour or two as a first wake-up call.
There are also analogies around about it being called a "timeout" as happens to tantrumming 3 year olds or footballers.
"You're losing control again, Mr Trump - I'm giving you a one hour timeout in the cooler. Do you want your pacifier?"
I mean, it wouldn't be a "wake up call" though, would it? If you popped him in a cell for an hour or two he'd just get bored and annoyed, and then as soon as he got out again he'd blabber about how strong he is for surviving it and how awfully persecuted he is. Drawing it out is the problem - treating him with kid gloves just proves to his base that people are scared of him and that must mean he is strong. If the law will bend to him, he must be in the right and they must know, in their heart of hearts, this is a stitch up. Etc. etc. They should have denied him bail at the outset.
The Republicans in Congress should have voted to convict him at his second impeachment trial in 2021.
I'm not sure he ever gets bored.
Sooner or later there will be an on-camera freakout - perhaps when police lay hands on him, perhaps when a judge tells him on camera to STFU.
His diehard supporters will believe whatever he tells them, even if it directly contradicts what they would otherwise see, or with sanity, or with the usual social requirement of acting in a non-laughable manner if you're an adult. See how some of them are wearing NAPPIES now in answer to Michael Cohen calling their hero "Von ShitzInPantz". Cohen presumably knew exactly what he was doing.
But many of Donald Trump's supporters are not diehard and in principle they can peel themselves off, as if not in a cult but on the outer periphery of one.
Mary Trump possibly has a different assessment of where he will go. She seems worried that he may be able to escape his current troubles.
You are right about how he projects his vantage-point: "This is what you know. This is how you're feeling, and what you're thinking, about being in the presence of a god". He was like that before he went into politics. Extremely powerful self-belief.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
God, those Fatleks were awful.
As for the BMW Mini, it has got larger, as do most cars, with every facelift. R50 was smaller than R56 and so on.
I love the Mini. Been to plant Oxford a few times in a past life during pre launch on R50, always a great buffet.
The first R50 was a pleasure to work on and be involved with.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
Mr Burnham adopting long-standing SNP policies. Not that he gives any credit, not at all, for where he got the idea.
Not that it matters - not many voters overlap ... and it's good news.
A good part of the solution to the housing crisis - I hope to see people who love to talk on that issue support this.
I can't see the point of banning council house sales. Increase the qualification period if necessary to temporarily reduce demand - but the actual problem here is one of supply.
Build much more social housing, sure. But selling existing stock off to long-term tenants can help fund further building, so do that too.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
If you look at the screen grab you can see he is looking down at the point the MINI is obvious. It wasn't a lack of time to react, he didn't see the MINI as he wasn't looking.
To add did the cyclist not think "Hmm, why are the cars to the right of me stationary"
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
I am also a fellow cyclist, I cycle to work daily and do around 60 miles a week. I think some people are saying this.
I do not disagree with you either. If you take a drink while driving you will rightly get a ticket for it. If I take a drink when cycling I do so when I have stopped. It is a distraction.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
Sure and if you are taking a swig of coffee as you plough into a Tesco Metro you will be guilty of careless driving and likely done for driving without due care and attention.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
God, those Fatleks were awful...
The Fatleks/Tellytubby Daleks/Skittle Daleks/New Paradigm Daleks are probably never coming back: the props are no longer viable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWReZfjFxY
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
Don't think any bike smaller than a Reliant Robin or Messerschmidt bubble wagon has a cup holder?
Conservatives keep backing things that hurt their own side.
Voter ID laws which stop Tory MPs from voting, electoral system changes which encouraged tactical votes for Sadiq Khan and now a postal vote ban which would have meant Ken Livingstone won in 2012
Oh if only Livingston had won in 2012. Johnson would have been a spent force a decade sooner than he ultimately was!
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Mr Burnham adopting long-standing SNP policies. Not that he gives any credit, not at all, for where he got the idea.
Not that it matters - not many voters overlap ... and it's good news.
A good part of the solution to the housing crisis - I hope to see people who love to talk on that issue support this.
I can't see the point of banning council house sales. Increase the qualification period if necessary to temporarily reduce demand - but the actual problem here is one of supply.
Build much more social housing, sure. But selling existing stock off to long-term tenants can help fund further building, so do that too.
Not doing so just pushes the problem elsewhere.
Except the thing that has happened is that the "long term tenants" do not generally sell on the ex council houses to owner occupation, but rather the majority of ex council stock has ended up being rented, but now they are rented in the private sector with the intermediate owner pocketing the large discount.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
I don't have all day to find the section you indicate (despite the evidence of my repeated posts) - can you link to the section you refer too?
Are you not familiar with the Highway Code already?
Not in minute detail, no. Passed my test in 1991, no retest since.
That explains a lot. Check out rule H3, for example.
I get that - the driver is at fault for cutting across. Unambiguous. BUT. The cyclist could have saved himself from danger by being more sensible. I was taught defensive driving (by an ex-police driver). You anticipate that other road users may not follow the highway code. The cyclist here is assuming that no-one will cut across, and he is right that if they obey the code, they won't. But in the real world he ought to be riding defensively and factoring in others making mistakes. As it was he was distracted himself.
Legally (by the code) the driver is in the wrong. But the incident could have been easily averted by the cyclist too, if he had paid attention.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
Don't think any bike smaller than a Reliant Robin or Messerschmidt bubble wagon has a cup holder?
My Carrera Crossfire does, as a screwed on extra. The bike frame came with pre drilled holes for the fitting of one.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
Trump wants to go to jail. He thinks that politically it is how he wins. Absurdly he has failed so far, but with jail the only legal sanction remaining its no strikes and you're out time.
How does jail work when the convict has a secret service detail? You could argue that as the convict would be in the protection of the authorities then they are not needed. How do you apply legal sanction fairly and equally - as demanded by the constitution - when you can't apply it equally because of who the convict is?
London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.
There are large parts of Greater London, where you do need to own a car.
A lot of people who live 100 yards from a Zone 2 station might not think so, but it’s true.
There are a few. The solution is to have more cycle lanes and better bus provision. On the whole in London, you do not need to own a car nor should you want to. We should aspire to have no cars at all in London.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
God, those Fatleks were awful...
The Fatleks/Tellytubby Daleks/Skittle Daleks/New Paradigm Daleks are probably never coming back: the props are no longer viable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWReZfjFxY
I Saw one at the Dr Who Exhibition in London over a decade ago. It was where they had the 3D Weeping Angels streaming out at you at one stage.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
All road users should keep their eyes on the road…
Mr Burnham adopting long-standing SNP policies. Not that he gives any credit, not at all, for where he got the idea.
Not that it matters - not many voters overlap ... and it's good news.
A good part of the solution to the housing crisis - I hope to see people who love to talk on that issue support this.
I can't see the point of banning council house sales. Increase the qualification period if necessary to temporarily reduce demand - but the actual problem here is one of supply.
Build much more social housing, sure. But selling existing stock off to long-term tenants can help fund further building, so do that too.
Not doing so just pushes the problem elsewhere.
It only helps fund further building if the money from the house sales goes to the local government housebuilding budget (rather than, say, partly or largely to central government) and if the funds resulting are more than the cost of building rather than less (or if they are suitably topped up from other central tax revenue). So while I'm in favour of "build more council houses and use RTB as a mechanism for increasing the private housing supply over time" I also wouldn't be surprised if with the current RTB system as set up by central government it was a drain on council house supply rather than a net positive.
This thread helpfully proves the point on cyclists vs cars. Some will always favour the cyclist, some the car.
Personally, I favour neither. There are idiots on both sides, especially those muppets on bikes that ignore red lights. But then there are muppets in cars that do that too.
This thread helpfully proves the point on cyclists vs cars. Some will always favour the cyclist, some the car.
Personally, I favour neither. There are idiots on both sides, especially those muppets on bikes that ignore red lights. But then there are muppets in cars that do that too.
At least one thing we can all agree on is the terrible road layout, with the end of the cycle lane immediately before a junction.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
All road users should keep their eyes on the road…
If I was an actuary, I'd probably hike the cyclist's car insurance (If he has one) as he's clearly more likely to be involved in an accident with his car than someone with good to excellent road awareness.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
I am also a fellow cyclist, I cycle to work daily and do around 60 miles a week. I think some people are saying this.
I do not disagree with you either. If you take a drink while driving you will rightly get a ticket for it. If I take a drink when cycling I do so when I have stopped. It is a distraction.
I'll be doing my first ever 'race' (*), and I've been practicing taking my bottle (**) out to drink whilst going along. Only on straight and level sections where I have lots of visibility around (***). I'm also practicing having a gel whilst riding, with the same criteria. Water's fine, but the gel gets a little messy.
Although TBF, as it's only a 25km ride, I'll probably do without either unless it's a really hot day, and just take my gels and water in transition.
(*) I'll just be happy if I finish. (**) Yes, it is a bottle. (***) The new cycle path alongside the old A14 is great for this.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
I don't have all day to find the section you indicate (despite the evidence of my repeated posts) - can you link to the section you refer too?
Are you not familiar with the Highway Code already?
Not in minute detail, no. Passed my test in 1991, no retest since.
That explains a lot. Check out rule H3, for example.
I get that - the driver is at fault for cutting across. Unambiguous. BUT. The cyclist could have saved himself from danger by being more sensible. I was taught defensive driving (by an ex-police driver). You anticipate that other road users may not follow the highway code. The cyclist here is assuming that no-one will cut across, and he is right that if they obey the code, they won't. But in the real world he ought to be riding defensively and factoring in others making mistakes. As it was he was distracted himself.
Legally (by the code) the driver is in the wrong. But the incident could have been easily averted by the cyclist too, if he had paid attention.
Is that fair?
Sure. But it's also right that much more responsibility lies with the person behind the wheel of the 1.5 tonne (and usually heavier) vehicle to keep everyone else safe.
The cyclist could have moved in a central position in front of the vehicles. Otoh, cyclists are also encouraged to filter through to the cycle box at the next junction where visibility is much higher in heavy traffic.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
I never claimed that about the highway code, so you are arguing a point I never made.
However you can eat or drink while driving you are open to being accused of careless driving if you can be accused of being distracted as a consequence.
In this case the cyclists drinking was negligent in my view and contributed to the accident.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
God, those Fatleks were awful...
The Fatleks/Tellytubby Daleks/Skittle Daleks/New Paradigm Daleks are probably never coming back: the props are no longer viable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWReZfjFxY
I Saw one at the Dr Who Exhibition in London over a decade ago. It was where they had the 3D Weeping Angels streaming out at you at one stage.
It looks just as bad in real life as on TV.
The original dalek design is iconic and I find it hard to believe that there exist other 'monsters' from 1960's sci fi that are essentially unchanged and yet look totally right. (I guess the last Capaldi story muddies the water a bit with the old style Cybermen, but Cybermen have been updated on a number of occasions, while a 2024 dalek will be the same as one from 1963.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
I don't have all day to find the section you indicate (despite the evidence of my repeated posts) - can you link to the section you refer too?
Are you not familiar with the Highway Code already?
Not in minute detail, no. Passed my test in 1991, no retest since.
That explains a lot. Check out rule H3, for example.
I get that - the driver is at fault for cutting across. Unambiguous. BUT. The cyclist could have saved himself from danger by being more sensible. I was taught defensive driving (by an ex-police driver). You anticipate that other road users may not follow the highway code. The cyclist here is assuming that no-one will cut across, and he is right that if they obey the code, they won't. But in the real world he ought to be riding defensively and factoring in others making mistakes. As it was he was distracted himself.
Legally (by the code) the driver is in the wrong. But the incident could have been easily averted by the cyclist too, if he had paid attention.
Is that fair?
Sure. But it's also right that much more responsibility lies with the person behind the wheel of the 1.5 tonne (and usually heavier) vehicle to keep everyone else safe.
The cyclist could have moved in a central position in front of the vehicles. Otoh, cyclists are also encouraged to filter through to the cycle box at the next junction where visibility is much higher in heavy traffic.
I don't disagree with that, I just think that this is not a black/white situation, which could have been avoided by a more careful cyclist (as one assumes happens thousands of times a day)
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera, or the driver failed to look and see.
Maybe the person riding the cycle is the invisible man, and the video camera has an invisible man detector to see people who are invisible to right-turning drivers.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing. Because there could be a pedestrian in the blind spot.
The right-turner failed to look, which is without due care all day.
I wouldn't drink while moving either, but that's nothing to do with the collision.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
I don't have all day to find the section you indicate (despite the evidence of my repeated posts) - can you link to the section you refer too?
Are you not familiar with the Highway Code already?
Not in minute detail, no. Passed my test in 1991, no retest since.
That explains a lot. Check out rule H3, for example.
I get that - the driver is at fault for cutting across. Unambiguous. BUT. The cyclist could have saved himself from danger by being more sensible. I was taught defensive driving (by an ex-police driver). You anticipate that other road users may not follow the highway code. The cyclist here is assuming that no-one will cut across, and he is right that if they obey the code, they won't. But in the real world he ought to be riding defensively and factoring in others making mistakes. As it was he was distracted himself.
Legally (by the code) the driver is in the wrong. But the incident could have been easily averted by the cyclist too, if he had paid attention.
Is that fair?
Sure. But it's also right that much more responsibility lies with the person behind the wheel of the 1.5 tonne (and usually heavier) vehicle to keep everyone else safe.
The cyclist could have moved in a central position in front of the vehicles. Otoh, cyclists are also encouraged to filter through to the cycle box at the next junction where visibility is much higher in heavy traffic.
I don't disagree with that, I just think that this is not a black/white situation, which could have been avoided by a more careful cyclist (as one assumes happens thousands of times a day)
IMV it is up to both cyclists and drivers to ride/drive responsibly. The riders and drivers both made mistakes. If only one had made a mistake, the accident would not have happened.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera, or the driver failed to look and see.
Maybe the person riding the cycle is the invisible man, and the video camera has an invisible man detector to see people who are invisible to right-turning drivers.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing. Because there could be a pedestrian in the blind spot.
The right-turner failed to look, which is without due care all day.
And looking down at your drinks holder until 1.2 seconds before impact is all good, is it?
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
I don't have all day to find the section you indicate (despite the evidence of my repeated posts) - can you link to the section you refer too?
Are you not familiar with the Highway Code already?
Not in minute detail, no. Passed my test in 1991, no retest since.
That explains a lot. Check out rule H3, for example.
I get that - the driver is at fault for cutting across. Unambiguous. BUT. The cyclist could have saved himself from danger by being more sensible. I was taught defensive driving (by an ex-police driver). You anticipate that other road users may not follow the highway code. The cyclist here is assuming that no-one will cut across, and he is right that if they obey the code, they won't. But in the real world he ought to be riding defensively and factoring in others making mistakes. As it was he was distracted himself.
Legally (by the code) the driver is in the wrong. But the incident could have been easily averted by the cyclist too, if he had paid attention.
Is that fair?
Sure. But it's also right that much more responsibility lies with the person behind the wheel of the 1.5 tonne (and usually heavier) vehicle to keep everyone else safe.
The cyclist could have moved in a central position in front of the vehicles. Otoh, cyclists are also encouraged to filter through to the cycle box at the next junction where visibility is much higher in heavy traffic.
I don't disagree with that, I just think that this is not a black/white situation, which could have been avoided by a more careful cyclist (as one assumes happens thousands of times a day)
This is part of the reason that cyclists can come across as quite aggressive. If you are a "careful cyclist", you have to live in constant anticipation that a driver is going to do something like this.
It's nervy stuff and when something does inevitably happen, there is a big release of that tension towards an oblivious but often not malicious driver. Your life is on the line.
It's also why there is a gender gap. Men have a higher tolerance to risk (in general).
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing.
He failed to look, which is without due care all day.
Quite so. He'll be clobbered if it goes to court.
Yet it's exactly the kind of situation in which I don't cross the road when I am out on foot - some driver is doing something tricky and in a hurry and under pressure and potentially panicking and cutting corners. I wait, till it is all sorted out. (One reason being so I can keep an eye open for cyclists overtaking on the inside from the other direction and ignoring pedestrians.)
The cyclist has himself to blame as well, and I hope his insurance goes up, simply in fairness to the other cyclists for when he gets his bike trashed or worse.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
God, those Fatleks were awful...
The Fatleks/Tellytubby Daleks/Skittle Daleks/New Paradigm Daleks are probably never coming back: the props are no longer viable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWReZfjFxY
I Saw one at the Dr Who Exhibition in London over a decade ago. It was where they had the 3D Weeping Angels streaming out at you at one stage.
It looks just as bad in real life as on TV.
The original dalek design is iconic and I find it hard to believe that there exist other 'monsters' from 1960's sci fi that are essentially unchanged and yet look totally right. (I guess the last Capaldi story muddies the water a bit with the old style Cybermen, but Cybermen have been updated on a number of occasions, while a 2024 dalek will be the same as one from 1963.
I like the in-universe explanation (that they continually upgrade themselves) for the Cybermen's changing appearance.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
God, those Fatleks were awful...
The Fatleks/Tellytubby Daleks/Skittle Daleks/New Paradigm Daleks are probably never coming back: the props are no longer viable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWReZfjFxY
I Saw one at the Dr Who Exhibition in London over a decade ago. It was where they had the 3D Weeping Angels streaming out at you at one stage.
It looks just as bad in real life as on TV.
The original dalek design is iconic and I find it hard to believe that there exist other 'monsters' from 1960's sci fi that are essentially unchanged and yet look totally right. (I guess the last Capaldi story muddies the water a bit with the old style Cybermen, but Cybermen have been updated on a number of occasions, while a 2024 dalek will be the same as one from 1963.
I like the in-universe explanation (that they continually upgrade themselves) for the Cybermen's changing appearance.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
I don't have all day to find the section you indicate (despite the evidence of my repeated posts) - can you link to the section you refer too?
Are you not familiar with the Highway Code already?
Not in minute detail, no. Passed my test in 1991, no retest since.
That explains a lot. Check out rule H3, for example.
I get that - the driver is at fault for cutting across. Unambiguous. BUT. The cyclist could have saved himself from danger by being more sensible. I was taught defensive driving (by an ex-police driver). You anticipate that other road users may not follow the highway code. The cyclist here is assuming that no-one will cut across, and he is right that if they obey the code, they won't. But in the real world he ought to be riding defensively and factoring in others making mistakes. As it was he was distracted himself.
Legally (by the code) the driver is in the wrong. But the incident could have been easily averted by the cyclist too, if he had paid attention.
Is that fair?
Sure. But it's also right that much more responsibility lies with the person behind the wheel of the 1.5 tonne (and usually heavier) vehicle to keep everyone else safe.
The cyclist could have moved in a central position in front of the vehicles. Otoh, cyclists are also encouraged to filter through to the cycle box at the next junction where visibility is much higher in heavy traffic.
I don't disagree with that, I just think that this is not a black/white situation, which could have been avoided by a more careful cyclist (as one assumes happens thousands of times a day)
This is part of the reason that cyclists can come across as quite aggressive. If you are a "careful cyclist", you have to live in constant anticipation that a driver is going to do something like this.
It's nervy stuff and when something does inevitably happen, there is a big release of that tension towards an oblivious but often not malicious driver. Your life is on the line.
It's also why there is a gender gap. Men have a higher tolerance to risk (in general).
There are definite times when cars act like dicks. Fine.
What we are talking about here is a cyclist going at some speed, undertaking a line of traffic, then taking a drink, and looking down to replace his drink and CAR.
That is a) a dick move; and b) imv likely as not illegal (driving w/o dc&a).
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing.
He failed to look, which is without due care all day.
Quite so. He'll be clobbered if it goes to court.
Yet it's exactly the kind of situation in which I don't cross the road when I am out on foot - some driver is doing something tricky and in a hurry and under pressure and potentially panicking and cutting corners. I wait, till it is all sorted out. (One reason being so I can keep an eye open for cyclists overtaking on the inside from the other direction and ignoring pedestrians.)
The cyclist has himself to blame as well, and I hope his insurance goes up, simply in fairness to the other cyclists for when he gets his bike trashed or worse.
Indeed. Being in the right is only of limited consolation when lying in the gutter. Piloting a vehicle (or even being a pedestrian) in a busy urban area is not just about knowing what you should be doing, it's also about anticipating other people making a mistake.
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
From the Standard Commenting on Tuesday, she said: “Zoë has shown how much of a difference she will make in City Hall, listening to Londoners and bringing their voices into the political debate.
“That’s why she needs to be in this job as soon as possible. She is already a brilliant councillor and will be a brilliant assembly member for Londoners.”
Berry is off to fight Brighton Pavillion, she'd run on the basis she'd serve unless and until she was elected at a GE.
Berry stepped down as a councillor in Camden some months ago on the grounds that she's spending so much time in Brighton. She shouldn't have been on the Green's Assembly list. They just kept her there because she has some name recognition. They are spitting in the face of democracy with this stunt. If it was so important for Garbett to get elected, they could've put Garbett first on the list. They chose to put her fourth.
It was how the members voted. It would be spitting in the face of democracy to put the candidates in any other order.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera, or the driver failed to look and see.
Maybe the person riding the cycle is the invisible man, and the video camera has an invisible man detector to see people who are invisible to right-turning drivers.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing. Because there could be a pedestrian in the blind spot.
The right-turner failed to look, which is without due care all day.
And looking down at your drinks holder until 1.2 seconds before impact is all good, is it?
Had he seen him earlier, he'd have probably still hit him - just perhaps not as hard.
Basically, it was the cyclist's right of way. We should all be alert to people suddenly taking up the roadspace in front of us, but if you hit someone who has driven suddenly into your carriageway- and you could have only avoided the collision by taking sudden evasive action - it's not really your fault.
This thread helpfully proves the point on cyclists vs cars. Some will always favour the cyclist, some the car.
Personally, I favour neither. There are idiots on both sides, especially those muppets on bikes that ignore red lights. But then there are muppets in cars that do that too.
At least one thing we can all agree on is the terrible road layout, with the end of the cycle lane immediately before a junction.
Yes, probably one of the very few times I can agree with your post!
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing.
He failed to look, which is without due care all day.
Quite so. He'll be clobbered if it goes to court.
Yet it's exactly the kind of situation in which I don't cross the road when I am out on foot - some driver is doing something tricky and in a hurry and under pressure and potentially panicking and cutting corners. I wait, till it is all sorted out. (One reason being so I can keep an eye open for cyclists overtaking on the inside from the other direction and ignoring pedestrians.)
The cyclist has himself to blame as well, and I hope his insurance goes up, simply in fairness to the other cyclists for when he gets his bike trashed or worse.
There are design issues too.
I routinely stop when driving at junctions, roundabout exits/entrances (which are also junctions) to let pedestrians, horses, cyclists etc cross - but only if I can fully control the situation. So not normally where there are 2 lanes together, unless I can make myself "wide" and block both.
The answer to that in addition to driver education is a move to single lane or more constrained approaches with roundabout designs that discourage, rather than facilitate, higher speeds.
There was actually an interesting cyclist vs cyclist insurance case recently after a collision on a Scottish cycleway. The more heavily injured cyclist (who had lost more employment time etc) claimed against the less heavily injured cyclist several years after the ~2019 crash and the Court ruled 50:50 fault, so he will get compensation from the other's insurance but half of the assessment.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
God, those Fatleks were awful...
The Fatleks/Tellytubby Daleks/Skittle Daleks/New Paradigm Daleks are probably never coming back: the props are no longer viable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWReZfjFxY
I Saw one at the Dr Who Exhibition in London over a decade ago. It was where they had the 3D Weeping Angels streaming out at you at one stage.
It looks just as bad in real life as on TV.
The original dalek design is iconic and I find it hard to believe that there exist other 'monsters' from 1960's sci fi that are essentially unchanged and yet look totally right. (I guess the last Capaldi story muddies the water a bit with the old style Cybermen, but Cybermen have been updated on a number of occasions, while a 2024 dalek will be the same as one from 1963.
The Cybermen got a facelift in virtually every story. Even in the eighties there were subtle differences.
The Moonbase ones are my favourites personally, the ones with Flares from Revenge of the Cybermen less good.
I am trying to think of another sixties monster that came back and was unchanged and it is a struggle.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera, or the driver failed to look and see.
Maybe the person riding the cycle is the invisible man, and the video camera has an invisible man detector to see people who are invisible to right-turning drivers.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing. Because there could be a pedestrian in the blind spot.
The right-turner failed to look, which is without due care all day.
And looking down at your drinks holder until 1.2 seconds before impact is all good, is it?
No, but imo nothing to do with this collision or its causes, other than as a red herring.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing.
He failed to look, which is without due care all day.
Quite so. He'll be clobbered if it goes to court.
Yet it's exactly the kind of situation in which I don't cross the road when I am out on foot - some driver is doing something tricky and in a hurry and under pressure and potentially panicking and cutting corners. I wait, till it is all sorted out. (One reason being so I can keep an eye open for cyclists overtaking on the inside from the other direction and ignoring pedestrians.)
The cyclist has himself to blame as well, and I hope his insurance goes up, simply in fairness to the other cyclists for when he gets his bike trashed or worse.
Indeed. Being in the right is only of limited consolation when lying in the gutter. Piloting a vehicle (or even being a pedestrian) in a busy urban area is not just about knowing what you should be doing, it's also about anticipating other people making a mistake.
Do cyclists have insurance? I don't.
I have it as a member of cycling UK. You can get it as part of your home insurance. Contents IIRC.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
God, those Fatleks were awful...
The Fatleks/Tellytubby Daleks/Skittle Daleks/New Paradigm Daleks are probably never coming back: the props are no longer viable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWReZfjFxY
I Saw one at the Dr Who Exhibition in London over a decade ago. It was where they had the 3D Weeping Angels streaming out at you at one stage.
It looks just as bad in real life as on TV.
The original dalek design is iconic and I find it hard to believe that there exist other 'monsters' from 1960's sci fi that are essentially unchanged and yet look totally right. (I guess the last Capaldi story muddies the water a bit with the old style Cybermen, but Cybermen have been updated on a number of occasions, while a 2024 dalek will be the same as one from 1963.
The Cybermen got a facelift in virtually every story. Even in the eighties there were subtle differences.
The Moonbase ones are my favourites personally, the ones with Flares from Revenge of the Cybermen less good.
I am trying to think of another sixties monster that came back and was unchanged and it is a struggle.
London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.
There are large parts of Greater London, where you do need to own a car.
A lot of people who live 100 yards from a Zone 2 station might not think so, but it’s true.
Yes; however the figure for households owning a motor vehicle is only half, and a large number of those will be enforced by a need to carry tools or drive out of London.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing.
He failed to look, which is without due care all day.
Quite so. He'll be clobbered if it goes to court.
Yet it's exactly the kind of situation in which I don't cross the road when I am out on foot - some driver is doing something tricky and in a hurry and under pressure and potentially panicking and cutting corners. I wait, till it is all sorted out. (One reason being so I can keep an eye open for cyclists overtaking on the inside from the other direction and ignoring pedestrians.)
The cyclist has himself to blame as well, and I hope his insurance goes up, simply in fairness to the other cyclists for when he gets his bike trashed or worse.
Indeed. Being in the right is only of limited consolation when lying in the gutter. Piloting a vehicle (or even being a pedestrian) in a busy urban area is not just about knowing what you should be doing, it's also about anticipating other people making a mistake.
Do cyclists have insurance? I don't.
Yes. Most cyclists will be covered by home insurance.
If not there's always Cycling UK (though why they ever changed the Cycle Touring Club name I have no idea).
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera, or the driver failed to look and see.
Maybe the person riding the cycle is the invisible man, and the video camera has an invisible man detector to see people who are invisible to right-turning drivers.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing. Because there could be a pedestrian in the blind spot.
The right-turner failed to look, which is without due care all day.
And looking down at your drinks holder until 1.2 seconds before impact is all good, is it?
No, but imo nothing to do with this collision or its causes, other than as a red herring.
Cycling without due care and attention is def a factor. He wasn't looking where he was going and might, if he had been looking, have slowed down to take into account traffic conditions.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
God, those Fatleks were awful...
The Fatleks/Tellytubby Daleks/Skittle Daleks/New Paradigm Daleks are probably never coming back: the props are no longer viable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWReZfjFxY
I Saw one at the Dr Who Exhibition in London over a decade ago. It was where they had the 3D Weeping Angels streaming out at you at one stage.
It looks just as bad in real life as on TV.
The original dalek design is iconic and I find it hard to believe that there exist other 'monsters' from 1960's sci fi that are essentially unchanged and yet look totally right. (I guess the last Capaldi story muddies the water a bit with the old style Cybermen, but Cybermen have been updated on a number of occasions, while a 2024 dalek will be the same as one from 1963.
The Cybermen got a facelift in virtually every story. Even in the eighties there were subtle differences.
The Moonbase ones are my favourites personally, the ones with Flares from Revenge of the Cybermen less good.
I am trying to think of another sixties monster that came back and was unchanged and it is a struggle.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
But not exactly under control if spilling hot coffee everywhere with the other hand.
Mr Burnham adopting long-standing SNP policies. Not that he gives any credit, not at all, for where he got the idea.
Not that it matters - not many voters overlap ... and it's good news.
A good part of the solution to the housing crisis - I hope to see people who love to talk on that issue support this.
I can't see the point of banning council house sales. Increase the qualification period if necessary to temporarily reduce demand - but the actual problem here is one of supply.
Build much more social housing, sure. But selling existing stock off to long-term tenants can help fund further building, so do that too.
Not doing so just pushes the problem elsewhere.
The problem is the discount; the sale does not fund the cost of a replacement. It is just free money for the buyer, at the expense of the taxpayer.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
The right-turner *could* see him.
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing.
He failed to look, which is without due care all day.
Quite so. He'll be clobbered if it goes to court.
Yet it's exactly the kind of situation in which I don't cross the road when I am out on foot - some driver is doing something tricky and in a hurry and under pressure and potentially panicking and cutting corners. I wait, till it is all sorted out. (One reason being so I can keep an eye open for cyclists overtaking on the inside from the other direction and ignoring pedestrians.)
The cyclist has himself to blame as well, and I hope his insurance goes up, simply in fairness to the other cyclists for when he gets his bike trashed or worse.
Indeed. Being in the right is only of limited consolation when lying in the gutter. Piloting a vehicle (or even being a pedestrian) in a busy urban area is not just about knowing what you should be doing, it's also about anticipating other people making a mistake.
Do cyclists have insurance? I don't.
I have it as a member of cycling UK. You can get it as part of your home insurance. Contents IIRC.
I'm covered through my home insurance. I think a lot of people end up over-paying because they don't realise they already have liability covered.
London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.
No you don't need a car in central London, you can use black cabs instead.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
Exactly. I would also say drinking while cycling along a line of stationary traffic is dafter than drinking while cycling in moving traffic.
This is why whenever I have a drink when cycling I do so when I am stopped. It is common sense. You may hit a pothole and lose control. There are many reasons. I have hit potholes twice in the last month and was very glad to have both hands on my handlebars.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
But not exactly under control if spilling hot coffee everywhere with the other hand.
Don't disagree. And good to see we are all agreeing that drinking while driving or cycling could, if traffic conditions dictate, be driving without due care & attention.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
I actually find that the HWC code changes have helped in my medium sized town.
It is a slow burn, especially due to the lack of publicity campaigns and total lack of continuing driver education in the UK.
But no one has driven into the back of me yet, and I find that drivers stop if my body language indicates I will be crossing. There are problems where there are poor sightlines, because like the right-turner in the vid they assume no one is in an area they cannot see and go sleepily hooning through, rather than thinking, and slowing down or stopping to look.
I'd say it's like 20mph zones, and may take a decade or two to change the culture.
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
The Med and Adriatic coasts are just so beautiful.
It’s utterly magical here - at this time of year anyway. I hear it is hideously rammed in July August and you have to book a space on the beach and reserve restaurants ten days in advance. But now? There’s no one here. Maybe the odd German hiker. Locals drink wine and argue, languidly, in the 14th century piazzas. A workman whistles and a lizard skitters, then all is quiet again. And as the afternoon passes the old Jewish ghetto dreams of itself, and the pines on the cliffs give their scent to the sun, and the sea
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
The Med and Adriatic coasts are just so beautiful.
It’s utterly magical here - at this time of year anyway. I hear it is hideously rammed in July August and you have to book a space on the beach and reserve restaurants ten days in advance. But now? There’s no one here. Maybe the odd German hiker. Locals drink wine and argue, languidly, in the 14th century piazzas. A workman whistles and a lizard skitters, then all is quiet again. And as the afternoon passes the old Jewish ghetto dreams of itself, and the pines on the cliffs give their scent to the sun, and the sea
Very poetic. But perhaps next time you should write the description yourself instead of getting Claude to do it.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
But not exactly under control if spilling hot coffee everywhere with the other hand.
Depends what you mean by "dangerous". To yourself? To others?
I've watched it again and the cyclist has already replaced the drink and restarted peddling before the Mini makes an appearance. He's doing significantly less than 20mph.
The only thing this shows is how speed is just so important for avoiding collisions, particularly when taking into account reaction times. Perhaps The Drake did not go far enough.
If - as Swinney says - Swinney is going to make wholesale changes to the government's program, then I do have to ask where his mandate is?
The Greens will vote for him as FM because they anticipate holding the whip hand. Alba will vote against him as FM because they hope to hold the whip hand. Ultimately though a confidence motion in the government - however little it can actually do with whatever legitimacy - will be won because the Tories and the Greens fear an early election.
I know it was before them becoming your current political football team but I hope you're asking your fellow SLDs what mandate they thought Jack McConnell had when they happily continued in coalition with him after his coronation as SLab leader and election as FM.
I have no problem changing leaders, especially in coalitions. It only becomes problematic when the new leader declares a specific mandate to radically change course - as Truss did, and as Swinney is now doing. This was less of a problem for Yousaf who was continuity Sturgeon.
Are you worrried that Swinney might reverse the GRR and Hate Crime bills, both of which the SLDs unanimously backed?
Surely he will scrap both or they are circling the drain
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
When did the US agree it, it was the Arab countries that drew it up. Unless they were fibbing the US had no clue till Hamas drew it out of the hat yesterday, to try and steamroll Israel into accepting their deal.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
If you go back to the start of the video, the cyclist should have seen the Mini [eta preparing to turn] several seconds earlier through the gap in the traffic, and the Mini likewise although the driver might have been looking down the right turn.
The cyclist was at fault. The driver may also have been at fault.
Rule 76 Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
The Med and Adriatic coasts are just so beautiful.
It’s utterly magical here - at this time of year anyway. I hear it is hideously rammed in July August and you have to book a space on the beach and reserve restaurants ten days in advance. But now? There’s no one here. Maybe the odd German hiker. Locals drink wine and argue, languidly, in the 14th century piazzas. A workman whistles and a lizard skitters, then all is quiet again. And as the afternoon passes the old Jewish ghetto dreams of itself, and the pines on the cliffs give their scent to the sun, and the sea
Very poetic. But perhaps next time you should write the description yourself instead of getting Claude to do it.
lol. I would reply with something insightful here - something that would quite probably blow your mind - a new discovery I’ve made - but I’m not allowed to discuss REDACTED
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
But not exactly under control if spilling hot coffee everywhere with the other hand.
Don't disagree. And good to see we are all agreeing that drinking while driving or cycling could, if traffic conditions dictate, be driving without due care & attention.
My favourite is still eating bowls of cereals (leaving aside Ronnie and Rhonda Pickering, and fat 58 year old men doing Kung Fu kicks, and landing butt-first).
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
The Med and Adriatic coasts are just so beautiful.
It’s utterly magical here - at this time of year anyway. I hear it is hideously rammed in July August and you have to book a space on the beach and reserve restaurants ten days in advance. But now? There’s no one here. Maybe the odd German hiker. Locals drink wine and argue, languidly, in the 14th century piazzas. A workman whistles and a lizard skitters, then all is quiet again. And as the afternoon passes the old Jewish ghetto dreams of itself, and the pines on the cliffs give their scent to the sun, and the sea
Very poetic. But perhaps next time you should write the description yourself instead of getting Claude to do it.
lol. I would reply with something insightful here - something that would quite probably blow your mind - a new discovery I’ve made - but I’m not allowed to discuss REDACTED
The ban should also be on you mentioning that there's something you're banned from talking about... Call it a super-injunction...
London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.
There are large parts of Greater London, where you do need to own a car.
A lot of people who live 100 yards from a Zone 2 station might not think so, but it’s true.
Yes; however the figure for households owning a motor vehicle is only half, and a large number of those will be enforced by a need to carry tools or drive out of London.
Exactly so, it is out of London (or the edges of Zone 6) that requires a car. I do 2 regular journeys, one is 7 miles and 25 minutes by car but 55 by public transport (in fact, only 11 is by public transport, the rest is walking), the other is 50 miles and 80-90 minutes by car but the quickest I've done it by public transport is 2:30 and that's only because I cycle the last 6 miles. Twice I haven't been able to go at all because there was no train service on that day.
But I agree with the sentiment that you should discourage driving locally. I rarely drive anywhere within 2-3 miles of where I live (walk/cycle) and never towards central London as public transport is always better. We do need better radial links in the suburbs though.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
Yes but it's much higher risk. A driver is in charge of a much heavier and faster moving piece of metal. We all drive and/or pilot our bikes in a way that is not totally risk free. Which is fine, until someone pulls across us/steps out in front of us/does something else unexpected. The cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as someone pulled directly into his path. But I'd suggest even if he'd had an extra half second from not putting his drink away he'd have been very lucky to avoid impact.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
So cyclists need to pay attention and drivers don't ?
In re the supposed automatic coronation of Mr Swinney as FM: the candidates for the election of FM have just been announced (BBC):
Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Liberal Democrats leader Douglas Ross, Scottish Conservatives leader Anas Sarwar, Scottish Labour leader John Swinney, Scottish National party leader
Slightly disappointed the Greens didn't put one up.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
So cyclists need to pay attention and drivers don't ?
Both do. Looking down fiddling with your water bottle while entering a junction is not paying attention.
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
The Med and Adriatic coasts are just so beautiful.
It’s utterly magical here - at this time of year anyway. I hear it is hideously rammed in July August and you have to book a space on the beach and reserve restaurants ten days in advance. But now? There’s no one here. Maybe the odd German hiker. Locals drink wine and argue, languidly, in the 14th century piazzas. A workman whistles and a lizard skitters, then all is quiet again. And as the afternoon passes the old Jewish ghetto dreams of itself, and the pines on the cliffs give their scent to the sun, and the sea
Very poetic. But perhaps next time you should write the description yourself instead of getting Claude to do it.
lol. I would reply with something insightful here - something that would quite probably blow your mind - a new discovery I’ve made - but I’m not allowed to discuss REDACTED
The ban should also be on you mentioning that there's something you're banned from talking about... Call it a super-injunction...
But then I’d just say that I could tell you something about something about something but I’m banned from mentioning the fact that REDACTED REDACTED but Jesus it’s a mindgasm
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
Yes but it's much higher risk. A driver is in charge of a much heavier and faster moving piece of metal. We all drive and/or pilot our bikes in a way that is not totally risk free. Which is fine, until someone pulls across us/steps out in front of us/does something else unexpected. The cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as someone pulled directly into his path. But I'd suggest even if he'd had an extra half second from not putting his drink away he'd have been very lucky to avoid impact.
Just to write that do you see how bizarre it sounds "the cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as..."
How anyone could think that it is ok for a cyclist to be drinking at that particular point is extraordinary. It's hardly pinging along the C3 on the Embankment. He was undertaking in heavy traffic.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
But not exactly under control if spilling hot coffee everywhere with the other hand.
Don't disagree. And good to see we are all agreeing that drinking while driving or cycling could, if traffic conditions dictate, be driving without due care & attention.
My favourite is still eating bowls of cereals (leaving aside Ronnie and Rhonda Pickering, and fat 58 year old men doing Kung Fu kicks, and landing butt-first).
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
The Med and Adriatic coasts are just so beautiful.
It’s utterly magical here - at this time of year anyway. I hear it is hideously rammed in July August and you have to book a space on the beach and reserve restaurants ten days in advance. But now? There’s no one here. Maybe the odd German hiker. Locals drink wine and argue, languidly, in the 14th century piazzas. A workman whistles and a lizard skitters, then all is quiet again. And as the afternoon passes the old Jewish ghetto dreams of itself, and the pines on the cliffs give their scent to the sun, and the sea
Very poetic. But perhaps next time you should write the description yourself instead of getting Claude to do it.
lol. I would reply with something insightful here - something that would quite probably blow your mind - a new discovery I’ve made - but I’m not allowed to discuss REDACTED
The ban should also be on you mentioning that there's something you're banned from talking about... Call it a super-injunction...
But then I’d just say that I could tell you something about something about something but I’m banned from mentioning the fact that REDACTED REDACTED but Jesus it’s a mindgasm
I see you've discovered the joys of pussycat and pineapple pizza. [edited]
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
Yes but it's much higher risk. A driver is in charge of a much heavier and faster moving piece of metal. We all drive and/or pilot our bikes in a way that is not totally risk free. Which is fine, until someone pulls across us/steps out in front of us/does something else unexpected. The cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as someone pulled directly into his path. But I'd suggest even if he'd had an extra half second from not putting his drink away he'd have been very lucky to avoid impact.
I honestly don't think that's the case from the video.
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
The Med and Adriatic coasts are just so beautiful.
It’s utterly magical here - at this time of year anyway. I hear it is hideously rammed in July August and you have to book a space on the beach and reserve restaurants ten days in advance. But now? There’s no one here. Maybe the odd German hiker. Locals drink wine and argue, languidly, in the 14th century piazzas. A workman whistles and a lizard skitters, then all is quiet again. And as the afternoon passes the old Jewish ghetto dreams of itself, and the pines on the cliffs give their scent to the sun, and the sea
Very poetic. But perhaps next time you should write the description yourself instead of getting Claude to do it.
I had a thoroughly disappointing couple of days in that neck of the woods in September 1996, as a poor student staying in a tent near the beach. Place called Gallipoli. The scirocco was blowing, it was overcast and the most humid I’ve ever encountered in Europe, and you couldn’t sit near the sea for salt spray. It then poured with rain.
London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.
There are large parts of Greater London, where you do need to own a car.
A lot of people who live 100 yards from a Zone 2 station might not think so, but it’s true.
Yes; however the figure for households owning a motor vehicle is only half, and a large number of those will be enforced by a need to carry tools or drive out of London.
Exactly so, it is out of London (or the edges of Zone 6) that requires a car. I do 2 regular journeys, one is 7 miles and 25 minutes by car but 55 by public transport (in fact, only 11 is by public transport, the rest is walking), the other is 50 miles and 80-90 minutes by car but the quickest I've done it by public transport is 2:30 and that's only because I cycle the last 6 miles. Twice I haven't been able to go at all because there was no train service on that day.
But I agree with the sentiment that you should discourage driving locally. I rarely drive anywhere within 2-3 miles of where I live (walk/cycle) and never towards central London as public transport is always better. We do need better radial links in the suburbs though.
It’s a lot further in than Zone 6 that can require a car.
Central London has very few car owners, so the half figure is deceptive.
For example, we are taking in my mother-in-law because she can’t drive (age/illness) and she was living in a house bought by her husband (passed away) in one of the areas that you really need a car for.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
Seems a flawed design for a cupholder to weigh that much.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."
"According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.” So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
Yes but it's much higher risk. A driver is in charge of a much heavier and faster moving piece of metal. We all drive and/or pilot our bikes in a way that is not totally risk free. Which is fine, until someone pulls across us/steps out in front of us/does something else unexpected. The cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as someone pulled directly into his path. But I'd suggest even if he'd had an extra half second from not putting his drink away he'd have been very lucky to avoid impact.
Just to write that do you see how bizarre it sounds "the cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as..."
How anyone could think that it is ok for a cyclist to be drinking at that particular point is extraordinary. It's hardly pinging along the C3 on the Embankment. He was undertaking in heavy traffic.
Where he had as much right to be as any driver. Notwithstanding what I said earlier about it only being of limited consolation being in the right while he's lying in the gutter, he shouldn't need to be hypervigilant all the time in case someone carelessly and wrongly ploughs across him.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_KsI_wkKgI
As for the BMW Mini, it has got larger, as do most cars, with every facelift. R50 was smaller than R56 and so on.
I love the Mini. Been to plant Oxford a few times in a past life during pre launch on R50, always a great buffet.
The first R50 was a pleasure to work on and be involved with.
Build much more social housing, sure. But selling existing stock off to long-term tenants can help fund further building, so do that too.
Not doing so just pushes the problem elsewhere.
In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.
Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
I do not disagree with you either. If you take a drink while driving you will rightly get a ticket for it. If I take a drink when cycling I do so when I have stopped. It is a distraction.
538 tends to break up polling results, into All voters, Registered voters, likely voters, which can be confusing.
https://theguardian.com/stage/article/2024/may/07/rufus-wainwright-blames-uk-narrow-outlook-after-brexit-for-opening-nights-flop
The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
Legally (by the code) the driver is in the wrong. But the incident could have been easily averted by the cyclist too, if he had paid attention.
Is that fair?
Perhaps the show was crap.
But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
I have seen some crap Brexit takes, this is one of the worst.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qYi_ecUoY4
It looks just as bad in real life as on TV.
Personally, I favour neither. There are idiots on both sides, especially those muppets on bikes that ignore red lights. But then there are muppets in cars that do that too.
Although TBF, as it's only a 25km ride, I'll probably do without either unless it's a really hot day, and just take my gels and water in transition.
(*) I'll just be happy if I finish.
(**) Yes, it is a bottle.
(***) The new cycle path alongside the old A14 is great for this.
The cyclist could have moved in a central position in front of the vehicles. Otoh, cyclists are also encouraged to filter through to the cycle box at the next junction where visibility is much higher in heavy traffic.
However you can eat or drink while driving you are open to being accused of careless driving if you can be accused of being distracted as a consequence.
In this case the cyclists drinking was negligent in my view and contributed to the accident.
From: https://www.askthe.police.uk/
1 - The right turner is visible in the video for at least 2 seconds whilst approaching the right-turn, so can see the cyclists approaching in the lane he is about to cross, unless it is a magic X-ray video camera, or the driver failed to look and see.
Maybe the person riding the cycle is the invisible man, and the video camera has an invisible man detector to see people who are invisible to right-turning drivers.
2 - The right turner failed to pause to look around the car who had either waved him across or left him a gap, and if you are crossing a traffic lane it is a basic responsibility of a careful and considerate driver to make sure it is clear.
That is *especially* the case when entering any space which may be a blind spot; you stop at a point where you can see it and make sure it is clear.
That's exactly the same reason as there is a rule not to overtake in lane 2 when a vehicle is stopped in lane 1 at a zebra crossing. Because there could be a pedestrian in the blind spot.
The right-turner failed to look, which is without due care all day.
I wouldn't drink while moving either, but that's nothing to do with the collision.
So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."
If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
It's nervy stuff and when something does inevitably happen, there is a big release of that tension towards an oblivious but often not malicious driver. Your life is on the line.
It's also why there is a gender gap. Men have a higher tolerance to risk (in general).
Yet it's exactly the kind of situation in which I don't cross the road when I am out on foot - some driver is doing something tricky and in a hurry and under pressure and potentially panicking and cutting corners. I wait, till it is all sorted out. (One reason being so I can keep an eye open for cyclists overtaking on the inside from the other direction and ignoring pedestrians.)
The cyclist has himself to blame as well, and I hope his insurance goes up, simply in fairness to the other cyclists for when he gets his bike trashed or worse.
What we are talking about here is a cyclist going at some speed, undertaking a line of traffic, then taking a drink, and looking down to replace his drink and CAR.
That is a) a dick move; and b) imv likely as not illegal (driving w/o dc&a).
Do cyclists have insurance? I don't.
Basically, it was the cyclist's right of way. We should all be alert to people suddenly taking up the roadspace in front of us, but if you hit someone who has driven suddenly into your carriageway- and you could have only avoided the collision by taking sudden evasive action - it's not really your fault.
I routinely stop when driving at junctions, roundabout exits/entrances (which are also junctions) to let pedestrians, horses, cyclists etc cross - but only if I can fully control the situation. So not normally where there are 2 lanes together, unless I can make myself "wide" and block both.
The answer to that in addition to driver education is a move to single lane or more constrained approaches with roundabout designs that discourage, rather than facilitate, higher speeds.
There was actually an interesting cyclist vs cyclist insurance case recently after a collision on a Scottish cycleway. The more heavily injured cyclist (who had lost more employment time etc) claimed against the less heavily injured cyclist several years after the ~2019 crash and the Court ruled 50:50 fault, so he will get compensation from the other's insurance but half of the assessment.
It will be a bit hard to track down reports.
The Moonbase ones are my favourites personally, the ones with Flares from Revenge of the Cybermen less good.
I am trying to think of another sixties monster that came back and was unchanged and it is a struggle.
If not there's always Cycling UK (though why they ever changed the Cycle Touring Club name I have no idea).
A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
He wasn't so he didn't.
There's no such thing as Macra
Macra do not exist.
It is just free money for the buyer, at the expense of the taxpayer.
This is why whenever I have a drink when cycling I do so when I am stopped. It is common sense. You may hit a pothole and lose control. There are many reasons. I have hit potholes twice in the last month and was very glad to have both hands on my handlebars.
It is a slow burn, especially due to the lack of publicity campaigns and total lack of continuing driver education in the UK.
But no one has driven into the back of me yet, and I find that drivers stop if my body language indicates I will be crossing. There are problems where there are poor sightlines, because like the right-turner in the vid they assume no one is in an area they cannot see and go sleepily hooning through, rather than thinking, and slowing down or stopping to look.
I'd say it's like 20mph zones, and may take a decade or two to change the culture.
I've watched it again and the cyclist has already replaced the drink and restarted peddling before the Mini makes an appearance. He's doing significantly less than 20mph.
The only thing this shows is how speed is just so important for avoiding collisions, particularly when taking into account reaction times. Perhaps The Drake did not go far enough.
The cyclist was at fault. The driver may also have been at fault.
Rule 76
Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Nor does rule 76 change that.
Whether in Surrey:
https://youtu.be/0elsNDRqLtQ?t=28
Or in Lane 2 of the M90 at Queensferry:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-61421665
But I agree with the sentiment that you should discourage driving locally. I rarely drive anywhere within 2-3 miles of where I live (walk/cycle) and never towards central London as public transport is always better. We do need better radial links in the suburbs though.
We all drive and/or pilot our bikes in a way that is not totally risk free. Which is fine, until someone pulls across us/steps out in front of us/does something else unexpected. The cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as someone pulled directly into his path. But I'd suggest even if he'd had an extra half second from not putting his drink away he'd have been very lucky to avoid impact.
Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Liberal Democrats leader
Douglas Ross, Scottish Conservatives leader
Anas Sarwar, Scottish Labour leader
John Swinney, Scottish National party leader
Slightly disappointed the Greens didn't put one up.
Voting soon.
How anyone could think that it is ok for a cyclist to be drinking at that particular point is extraordinary. It's hardly pinging along the C3 on the Embankment. He was undertaking in heavy traffic.
[edited]
Central London has very few car owners, so the half figure is deceptive.
For example, we are taking in my mother-in-law because she can’t drive (age/illness) and she was living in a house bought by her husband (passed away) in one of the areas that you really need a car for.