Forum menu
While the video is nothing new, what is a surprise is the volume of folk who are more bothered about lack of helmets, high-viz and lights than the bad driving. Can someone explain? (Bez?)
Good grief. The frothing from the anti-helmetters on there is even worse than on here.
However I don't think people are MORE bothered about the lack of helmet, because the bad driving is very obvious but also very normal. Might as well post comment on the trees or the grass.
That's not to absolve the driver of course, but we all know there are arsehole bad drivers so that makes it less commentworthy.
That's a horrible video to watch. Whilst I don't agree with the little girl not wearing a helmet, it's not a law that she has to.
The Range Rover pass is terrible and hopefully the bugger gets done for it
Some comedy keyboard warrior gold in that comment section though. One commenter named Tony seems to have found copy/paste
I bet you insist yourself and your kids wear helmets whilst walking or going in the car right…worse/same risk respectively, what’s that, you don’t? HYPOCRITE!
How are we supposed to see the Range Rover, when it is not eye-melting yellow? 😉
Is it half term in the UK or something. Or have they just let the entirety of mumsnet loose on the internet at large. Specifically, that article.
Can someone explain?
People are ignorant dicks, especially on the internet.
BUT I'm pro-choice when it comes to helmets, and my own eight-year-old daughter suffered a severe head injury recently (not cycling). There's no way I'd allow her to cycle on a busy suburban London street without a helmet.
So I'm not very impressed with "Tim Lennon, the secretary at the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain" TBH.
Yeah, echo the above. Helmets are a choice, but that choice shouldn't be made flippantly - she absolutely probably maybe should if the parent agrees be wearing a helmet, if they choose to.
But yeh, terrible driving from that driver, which is a real point of the video.
So I'm not very impressed with "Tim Lennon, the secretary at the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain" TBH.
So not that pro choice then 🙂
the father should have been out in Primary to prevent this happening.
So not that pro choice then
For adults 100%.
For children, not so sure.
the father should have been out in Primary to prevent this happening.
It shouldn't need preventing, the first car had room the Range Rover was channcing it and came incredibly close to ruining someones life.
Worse case the kid or the dad gets hit whoever is on front - the cyclist is not at fault when there's a dubious overtake by a knob in an Range Rover.
Perhaps they had such a "good field of vision" they failed to see the short person.
Kids should have helmets, yep, but a helmet won't save them from a stupidly big car driven badly. I'm all for the high vis and helmet stuff usually but it wouldn't have made a difference there.
Don't know that area, surprised it isn't double yellowed. Some of that road at the start looks like parked car hell for overtaking anyway.
Riding in primary could probably have prevented the driver making the unsafe pass as it would have been clear there was no room.
It shouldn't need preventing, the first car had room the Range Rover was channcing it and came incredibly close to ruining someones life.
^ That
Riding in primary could probably have prevented the driver making the unsafe pass as it would have been clear there was no room.
I've been in primary plenty of times when idiots have still overtaken in a dangerous manner. The big white van approaching on the other side of the road should have been cause enough for the Ranger Rover to not attempt it, let alone two cyclists in daylight in front of them.
True, TJ, but again
It shouldn't need preventing
There was what looked like a path cutting across the grass near the beginning with a blue cycle sign. If the sign was for the path I'd have been on that. Even if not, with an 8 year old, I'd have been on it.
But what happened happened and if I could think any less of most RR drivers I do now.
Riding in primary could probably have prevented the driver making the unsafe pass as it would have been clear there was no room.
I could agree... but we'd both be wrong 🙂
Riding in primary could probably have prevented the driver making the unsafe pass as it would have been clear there was no room.
Makes no difference to a lot of drivers. I ride in primary when approaching blind corners and can hear cars coming in opposite direction. Drivers still overtake me and when I manage to 'flag' them down their immediate question is usually "why was I riding in the middle of the road making it hard for them to overtake"!
A lot of drivers really are not thinking when driving and assuming everything will be alright, I will squeeze through here, nothing will be coming round blind corner there etc,. or worse they have thought about it but don't care.
The type of overtake into oncoming cars in that video happens to me at least once on every ride where I live.
A lot of drivers really are not thinking when driving and assuming everything will be alright
50m club run last week - lots of traffic waiting before overtaking but lots not. Specifically, plenty overtaking round blind bends. I counted the seconds after they passed us before something came the other way - three times I got to 2 seconds. Thats two seconds from a head-on collision which would've been 80+ mph closing speed and no doubt taking out the front riders from our group as well as the people in the cars...
Of course, these were all near misses, no damage was done, but clearly the drivers weren't thinking and assessing the risk in any way at all... a two second margin from serious injury and death for at least 4 people...
tjagain - Member
Riding in primary could probably have prevented the driver making the unsafe pass as it would have been clear there was no room.
I actually posted almost exactly that on the thread itself when I saw it on FB this afternoon !
Interesting to see pro helmet nutters here too.
Spawnofyorkshire try to engage your brain.
The scary thing about these 'squeeze past' manoeuvres is that I have people do it to me, even when I'm in my car.
My commute involves some quite narrow country roads and, where there are particularly narrow sections, it is astonishing how often people coming in the opposite direction will not simply slow down long enough for me to exit the narrow bit. They just blithely carry on into the narrow section, with one of several scenarios resulting...
1/ A very close pass, often at considerable speed, sometimes involving wing mirror contact
2/ Me coming to a stop, to avoid a collision, but them continuing regardless
3/ Both of us coming to a stop, then doing stupid manoeuvres to get past each other (mounting kerbs or scratching cars on bushes) This one results in a massively bigger delay than slowing down would have done (face palm)
Admittedly, they usually get through but, if they do this most days, it's only a matter of time before it ends in tears.
I really out to make a compilation video.
If people are prepared to do this, when the risk is colliding with another car, they will have no compunction about doing it to a bicycle.
I despair for the human(?) race
I would have gone to the left
Side on the nice cycle
Marked path that leads through the park pretty much parallel to to road. Esp with an 8 year old. That road doesn't look nice
and my own eight-year-old daughter suffered a severe head injury recently (not cycling).
Cha****ng, I hope your daughter is ok and recovering well. Take care.
If people are prepared to do this, when the risk is colliding with another car, they will have no compunction about doing it to a bicycle.
They certainly don't. I live in the New Forest where the council seem obsessed with artificial road narrowing.
The first 2 mile stretch from my house has 7 of them! There is no right of way on any of them so it is a free for all. I would say around 20% of drivers just drive through without slowing down at all, expecting the cyclist to stop because they have no choice up against a car. And about 20% of drivers overtake to squeeze in before me (guessing the same drivers).
I would say the narrowings are the most dangerous part of my ride.
[quote=cozz ]I would have gone to the left
Side on the nice cycle
Marked path that leads through the park pretty much parallel to to road. Esp with an 8 year old. That road doesn't look nice
The rubbish looking one which pops back out on the road at exactly the point the RR cut in? So in order for it to have helped avoid the incident it would have to be less convenient.
The road looks like a normal road. Nothing wrong with it at all apart from an idiot in a RR, but then you get them everywhere.
Aye - I used to cycle past Sandy Balls on Roger Penny Way (Finbar Saunders fans, your next holiday is only a click away!). The 2 narrowings there, despite signs showing give way priorities, are bloody lethal for bikersI would say the narrowings are the most dangerous part of my ride.
The road looks like a normal road. Nothing wrong with it at all apart from an idiot in a RR
Exactly, just a road like any other road - they only become dangerous roads if you have dangerous driving
Dad needs to do more to protect his daughter. He's not in a great road position and she isn't very visible. While the driver is in the wrong i think it would be an easy mistake to make, as they thought they were only overtaking the adult.
dragon - Member
Dad needs to do more to protect his daughter. He's not in a great road position and she isn't very visible. While the driver is in the wrong i think it would be an easy mistake to make, as they thought they were only overtaking the adult.
For real?
The driver has no duty to look ahead 10 feet of the cyclist he's overtaking?
We're ****ed if driver-excusing is the prevailing view.
Father should do more to protect his kid,she is going to be really hard to see in her 'camo' coat and with him effectively blocking any drivers view of her. I said the driver was in the wrong but i can understand how it happens, as the driver is expecting to pass one rider not two.
Belugabob - exactly that.
On my commute home i pass through an old railway arch that is a narrow single lane just wide enough for a normal sized car.
This week i had actually entered the arch, riding centrally to dissuade any silly manoevres, when the oncoming driver simply carried on coming even though i was in the arch before they came to it.
The driver wasn't prepared to even slow down slightly to make the pass safer and easier, i ended up bouncing of his passenger side door* as he swueezed past.
*OK i kicked it!
as the driver is expecting to pass one rider not two
Why? Not driving into a space that you can not see to be clear is not an advanced driving technique, it's Highway Code 101. Someone who can't manage that should not be on the road.
MattOB,
It's simple everyone likes to critique others parenting, and like driving assumes they are better than average at it rather than questioning why they believe their approach is better.
Interestingly I take the opposite view. Teaching 8 yr olds that a bike is an effective, and generally quite safe and healthy mode of transport that doesn't need specialist equipment or to be confined to inefficient dog ridden dedicated paths that stop and start every few yards to giveaway to other traffic, Seems to me like both excellent parenting (which makes his daughter less likely to die from obesity related disease) and a brilliant way to promote cycling as a simple mode of transport rather than a sport which I assume is a mission of the Cycling Embassy.So I'm not very impressed with "Tim Lennon, the secretary at the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain"
If he was wearing a helmet himself it does seem slightly odd, but without knowing where they were going to / from or why it's hard to say (e.g. was he dropping her off/collecting somewhere with poor helmet storage)? Does she hate wearing a helmet and refuse to ride with one? or perhaps his camera was on his bars not helmet and he also risk assessed the trip as not needing one for himself.
I was an early adopter of helmets, and usually wear one but I do get concerned that they are so normalised that we will soon be required to wear them and popping to the shops on a bike will be completely killed and the car will prevail - killing more people through both laziness and traffic increase.
It is interesting that amongst the no helmet hysteria there is also some no children on roads hysteria. When I saw that I decided not to reply on the thread as clearly those people aren't worth me risking RSI typing to.
My initial reaction was to think what the parent could have done more to be more protective, but TBH if you start straying in that direction, the 'rational' outcome is that you get the mindset that you and your kids shouldn't be cycling on the road in a built-up area at all.
Even without the little girl there, seen or unseen by the RR driver, it would have been a shitty 'just nip through' close pass (which, TBH, is business as usual in our towns and cities) . The presence of the lass just emphasises the potential consequences when there is already so little margin for the unexpected. If you're only leaving a foot in front and six inches to the side of the cyclist you're passing, there's no room for the tiny child you didn't see in front, or the swerve when the cyclist hits a pothole.
So 100% the fault of that driver, and the driving culture which so many like him/her operate in.
My initial reaction was to think what the parent could have done more to be more protective,
The parent doesn't need to do anything. They are cycling on the road and the girl seems to be able to control her bike well which is all that is required before riding on the road. The parent has done their job.
This is the point being missed by those blaming the parent. If you need to blame a parent how about the parent of the car driver...
Looks to me like that RR was coming through come what may, also looks like parent was riding in a protective position on the road - 100% driver being a fault hope the cyclist reports it & driver gets a speaking to at the very minimum.
On a side note my super power of choice would be to be able to make people s**t themselves & this looks like a perfect excuse to use it 😈
I have been reflecting on this, and the reason I posted. I am surprised by how many people (on here and the link) that are of the view it is a cyclists responsibility to avoid/be seen/protect - with it seems minimal expectation that a car driver should protect/look out/avoid.
As a friend pointed out yesterday - this is the equivalent of suggesting a revealing dress was partial reason someone is raped, or a bullying victim being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If we carry the 'you must wear a helmet and lumi' defence to it's conclusion, not one of us should cycle on a road where we come into contact with drivers in vehicles.
As a friend pointed out yesterday - this is the equivalent of suggesting a revealing dress was partial reason someone is raped
Yeah exactly. I just came here to say exactly that. It's victim blaming cyclist rape culture.