In this months issue of Intelligent Instructor magazine, there is an article from the RAC, the heading of which suggests that motorists could face being fined and getting points on their licences if they stop inside the cycle forward area (advanced stop lines) at traffic lights. The full RAC news release is here.
I’m absolutely in favour of that, because the number of drivers who ignore them totally – especially taxis, Audis, BMWs, motorcyclists, and other crap drivers – drives me mad. They’re there for a reason, and shouldn’t be ignored.
However, there are no links whatsoever indicating where this has come from, or how reliable it is, and the only quoted source appears to be “Olympic cyclist Sir Chris Hoy”. On top of that, motorists can already be fined for stopping in the box (see later). So you have as much balance as you’d have trying to place a rock on a tightrope. Consequently, I did a bit of Googling, and immediately came up with this article in The Sun (a UK tabloid, registered at the Post Office as a comic). This one is much more interesting.
In this article, dated only a couple of days ago (and more recent than the RAC story, which is from last week), it seems that cyclists could find themselves being fined up to £1,000 if they go over the second (stop) line. And as we all know, most of them do (the ones that don’t use the pavement at the last minute instead, then skip back on to the road once they get across the pedestrian crossings). To be fair, there are no absolute links in this article, either, though they do quote rather more balanced sources than the RAC does.
The thing is, drivers can already be fined and get points on their licence for stopping after the 1st line – and that’s official, from the police. So is the fact that cyclists can already be fined for crossing the 2nd line. It isn’t actually illegal for a motor vehicle to stop in the cycle area unless you do it after the light has changed to red – it’s not illegal if the light changes as you are passing through the box. Of course, the problem with that is that it has to be witnessed by a policeman or caught on camera.
It would appear that the only thing changing is the price list. I cannot see how they could possibly make it completely illegal for a motorist to stop in the cycle area, since there are sometimes extenuating circumstances. The one that jumps instantly to mind is on someone’s driving test – they haven’t seen a red light, the examiner uses the dual controls, and they stop in the box. It happens – it actually happened to one of mine less than a month ago – and the only alternatives would be to shoot the red and either get a prosecution notice or collide with someone, or brake so hard someone goes into the back. DVSA would love having to deal with the fallout from those.
You will also note that the cycle forward area is only for pedal cycles. Motorcycles and motor scooters are classed as motor vehicles along with cars, buses, vans, lorries, etc., and are not supposed to use them. I don’t need to point out that motorcycles and scooters routinely weave past and stop in them.
The only changes that I definitely think should be made are that cyclists get fined the same as motorists for not complying with the rules, and that enforcement is equally distributed. If the fine is increased from the current £50 for cyclists and £100 for motorists to the suggested “up to” £1,000 for everyone, and cyclists get nailed as readily as motorists, then good. And tough.
I was on a lesson over the weekend, and driving through the city centre and on to London Road we were repeatedly obstructed by a cyclist who was weaving through traffic and riding in the middle of lanes to prevent anyone getting by. Amusingly, he had a GoPro on the front of his helmet – which I assume must have been attached with a couple of 6-inch nails straight through his brain.
I pointed out to my pupil, as this twat weaved his way through traffic and rode straight through red traffic lights at the junction between Lower Parliament Street and Pennyfoot Street, that this was the precise location where a woman cyclist was killed not that long ago. Then, at the roundabout, he skipped on to the pavement to avoid stopping, and we again had to deal with him blocking the left lane he’d re-joined as we approached Hooters.
He wasn’t unusual. He was typical.
Coincidentally, the case against the lorry driver who ran over that woman has just come to its conclusion. He has been found guilty of “causing her death by careless driving”. The BBC Local newsfeed has a few more details – most notably:
Jurors were told it is not illegal for a cyclist to come up the inside of a lorry, but the Highway Code recommends not to do so.
Actually, the Highway Code says various things aimed at cyclists. I can’t find anything like that, but there are plenty of much better ones.
On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb.
I don’t think it has been proven one way or the other whether Adam Haywood was signalling. He has never claimed that he was – saying that he cannot remember, but that he normally would have. That Post report somehow has reached the conclusion that he wasn’t, and I believe this is based on the premise that Louise Wright – an all-knowing and completely flawless cyclist – wouldn’t have been there if he – a totally flawed and guilty before proven motorist – had been signalling, so since she was there, he couldn’t have been.
The big problem here is that the Highway Code is full of MUSTs and DO NOTs for motorists (the capitals mean there is a Law that applies). ALL the cyclist rules – with a few notable exceptions – are completely free from hindrance of Laws, meaning cyclists can technically get away with anything. Absolutely no cyclist is anywhere near flawless, and even the exceptions are ignored.
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
I don’t think I need to say again that 95% of cyclists ride on the pavement when it suits them. And 100% of the police force does sod all about it. Then there is:
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Not many cyclists have lights fitted, or even reflectors.
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic
The majority think nothing of skipping lights when it suits them, and many haven’t got a clue about cycle forward areas and assume they can do that at any junction.
- never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
- not ride close behind another vehicle
It’s common to see the Spandex boys slipstreaming cars and buses. Riding two abreast on country lanes and busy roads is standard behaviour. Earlier this summer there was an organised cycle event around Ruddington and the south of Nottingham, and there were parents riding three or four abreast as they ushered there bloody kids on tiny little toy bikes along the A60. It was extremely dangerous, since the roads had not been closed, and you had to overtake wide.
Considering all of the above, the Pennyfoot Street junction does not have a cycle forward area. The junction is one of the busiest in Nottingham and the accident happened during the rush hour. Any cyclist pushing forward – and especially alongside a lorry – under those conditions would need their head examining. And yet they still do it.
When I’m out on lessons, my blood sometimes runs cold when I suddenly realise that a cyclist has crept up on our left side. It’s bad enough that it almost catches me out – but what about the pupil, who might only be on their second or third session? Even a newly qualified driver may not have suitably developed skills to spot every retard on two wheels who does things like this – and it doesn’t help anyone if they all find out the hard way. Neither the dead or seriously injured cyclist, nor the severely traumatised driver (who will undeservedly get 100% of the blame and 0% sympathy).
It seems that the Law is very eager to blame Adam Haywood for Louise Wright’s death. It is prepared to make all kinds of assumptions without the necessary proof in order to do so. But if you were being completely objective about it, it would be equally simple to make some similar assumptions about Louise Wright putting herself in such a dangerous situation to begin with.
The Highway Code urgently needs some DO NOTs and MUSTs adding to the cycling rules. Unfortunately, before that can happen, the UK needs to start getting real about cycling and road use. The government needs to stop trying to encourage people to ride on the roads, and instead get them on to the very expensive and underused cycle lanes and cycle routes.
Adam Haywood has been found guilty of “careless driving” because such a crime exists. There is no Law about careless cycling, and on that basis Mr Haywood might be considered to have been hard done by over something that was, at best, more like 50:50.
There’s more detail in this updated story on the BBC. The article repeats:
Jurors were told it is not illegal for a cyclist to come up the inside of a lorry, but the Highway Code recommends not to do so.
It also adds:
Jurors were told there is nothing in law to say that a driver must indicate, but the Highway Code says they should.
Only the first nebulous statement was used in determining Adam Haywood’s guilt. The second one was not used at any time to suggest that Louise Wright was equally to blame if such vague reasoning is to be allowed in courts of law. I’m sorry, but this is just f—ing ridiculous.
The BBC’s Local News feed includes a post:
Cyclist death should ‘remind motorists about awareness’
Speaking after the sentencing, Det Con Connie Xavier from the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said: “It should remind all motorists for the need for absolute awareness.”
“If we allow that awareness to lapse, even for one moment, it can result, as with this case, in a loss of life.”
This is why the police have lost the plot. Where is the vital mention that cyclists should also develop “awareness” and not behave like anarchic prats?
Four years ago, spurred on by the London Olympics, a lot of people with no brains took up cycling, and so joined a lot of other people with no brains who already cycled.
I think I should explain, for about the six hundredth time, that I ride a bike sometimes. But – being in possession of a brain – I tend to do the following:
- keep away from traffic whenever possible
- use cycle paths wherever possible
- follow the rules in the Highway Code
As we all know, though, the vast majority of cyclists do none of these things. They deliberately ride in traffic, deliberately get in the way of traffic, deliberately refuse to use cycle paths and cycle lanes, and do not abide by a single rule in the Highway Code. And they’re just the good ones. The long and the short of it is that the number of brain dead cyclists on the roads has increased dramatically since London, and the Rio Olympics appear to have given the problem another kick start. As a result, the number of actually dead cyclists continues to rise.
Here in Nottingham, the City Council has decided that we should be like Amsterdam as far as bikes are concerned (it also decided we should be like Munich, Hanover, Vienna, Zagreb, and lots of other places it was nice to visit on expensive “fact finding” trips about tram systems, but that’s another story). Consequently, it has continued to plan and introduce more and more dedicated cycle routes – bravely ignoring all opposition – as it steamrollers its Cycle City Ambition Programme through every inch of road.
Probably the worst example at the moment is along Castle Boulevard and the surrounding area. This what the road used to look like:
Notice how the lanes were wide and there was already a cycle lane marked out.
But this is what it is like now, after the installation of Nottingham City Council’s Glorious Cycle Superhighway:
You can see how the kerbed area on the left has taken a significant amount of road away from motor vehicles. If you go back towards the city centre you will also notice that all the residential parking along the side where the cycle route is has been lost.
Further away from the city, at the junction with Abbey Bridge, the roundabout which used to be two lanes wide is now only a single lane (as are all the feed roads). This older shot is from the Lenton side before Google has had a chance to update its imagery:
As a result – and bearing in mind that this is a main route into the city centre and the Castle Marina Retail Park – traffic is frequently queueing on to the roundabout, even outside rush hour. Nottingham City Council has, in its quest to make sweet love to all cyclists while systematically screwing all motorists, created serious congestion.
But I haven’t got to my point yet, I’m just about to show you proof that Nottingham City Council is staffed by complete and utter f–kwits.
Let’s turn left from Castle Boulevard and on to Abbey Bridge. Here’s what the road looked earlier this year (again, Google imagery hasn’t been updated yet):
Nice wide road with a cycle lane either side. Enough room for cars and lorries to keep well away from cyclists.
Here’s what it looks like now, with the Superhighway installed:
You can’t quite see how narrow the lanes are now that more than a quarter of the road’s width has been given over to the new kerbed cycle route. Back down by the roundabout they’re narrower still, AND they have put in a pedestrian crossing more or less ON the roundabout itself.
Just consider this a moment. The area is more than 90% student accommodation, and is a ten minute walk from the University main campus. Anyone who has ever had to drive during rush hour where there are students and pedestrian crossings will know how much of a delay that can create as the crossing spends more time on red than it does on green. And you purposely put such a crossing right on a roundabout which – as we’ve already seen – is on a road which was busy to begin with, and which has been made more so by the halving of its capacity. And the problems already being encountered have occurred during summer before the students come back…? But I still haven’t come to my point yet – and you’re going to love it!
As you travel over Abbey Bridge and down the other side, you approach the junction with Lenton Lane on the left and Gregory Street on the right. This is what it looks like right now:
As the cycle superhighway ends, the road opens up into two lanes at the lights. The lanes are clearly marked as you approach, thus:
One detail you might not notice is that, having spent millions on building a dedicated and segregated cycle route, the Council f—kwits have not seen fit to provide any cycle lane between the end of the superhighway and the cycle forward area at the lights. You will understand that in normal operation, hundreds of cars will be trying to move into that left hand lane while – theoretically, at least – hundreds of Bradley Wigginses will be trying to move into it from the superhighway. And it’s not marked up in any way!
But I’m still not there yet. And here it comes.
This is what the road looked like until two days ago. At the weekend they had the road markers out, and this is what they did at this junction. It is exactly the same as in the photo above on the approach, but this is what you have when you get there:
Precisely what that left turn arrow is doing there is anyone’s guess. But the placement of a marked cycle lane right in the path of traffic has to be the most stupid and dangerous thing I have ever seen carried out by people in positions of ill-deserved power.
It’s so dangerous it’s criminal. Literally.
I should point out that the last three images were taken from the same video clip I recorded when I drove through the junction today. I didn’t have a picture of the junction prior to the weekend so I simply erased the new cycle lane in the 2nd image to show what it looked like last week.
They simply cannot leave it like this, as it is an accident waiting to happen. The big question, though, is what will they do? The road is too busy – a lot of people turn right – to restrict traffic to just the right hand lane. It isn’t wide enough to accommodate the superhighway and two lanes either at or beyond this junction (I guess that’s why it ends 50m short). There are definitely two lanes on the other side. And the road has been two lanes for so long – decades – changing it now would be dangerous. In any case, the road leads to the ring road, and is a major route to Long Eaton, Beeston, Chilwell, and Derby.
Lenton students are idiots
Someone found the blog on that search term. ALL students are idiots. The problem with Lenton is that 99.9% of the population is student, so the problem is amplified.
I woke up this morning to the news that a road in Bingham is closed because there was a hit-and-run last night on a cyclist – and the cyclist died.
The motorist, a 28-year old male, is now in custody. If he is the one who was driving, he deserves to have the book thrown at him – and there is little doubt that he will have it thrown at him.
Just a couple of additional details. The incident occurred at 10.15pm (i.e. in the dark, since sunset was slightly after 9pm). From the photograph, the section of road where it happened is shrouded with trees (it is mid-summer, so the trees are in full leaf),
and appears to be unlit. The cyclist was a 13-year old child (the bulletins have been updated to say he was 14).
When I was 13 (or 14), I most likely wouldn’t have been allowed out that late, and I know I would have been forced to have lights on my bike. If I had been out that late – especially without lights – the odds of being stopped by a passing police patrol (on foot or in a car) and given a talking to were miles better than 50:50. At 13 (or 14), I would have been classed as a child – not a “boy” or a “young male” in an attempt at political correctness. Even the term “teenager” was mainly reserved for 16-year olds and above. And back then, there wasn’t a culture of “cyclists rule”, which was likely to affect children and other people with attitude or maturity problems. Mind you, neither was there a culture of riding cars around as if they were bikes, either.
I’m just saying.
TV reports suggest the car involved may have been travelling “in convoy” with a 2nd car the police are eager to trace.
Regular readers will know how I feel about cyclists. This year looks like it is going to be the worst yet – there’s already a plague of the damned things which is rivalling even the most alarmist newspaper predictions about other plagues we can expect this summer.
There was an incident this week where a cyclist was hit by a bus, and the video of passers by lifting the 12 tonne vehicle off him went viral. Whilst news reports concentrate on the “amazing” actions of the public, much less (almost nothing, actually) is being made of the fact that the “cyclist” was riding a unicycle, that he:
…looked like he was wobbling a bit…
…a dreadlocked man on a unicycle – circus performer Anthony Shields – crossing from the semi-pedestrianised street to his left. “Then he went behind the bus and came round so he was on the right of it, on the inside behind the driver’s window.”
It would appear that in London alone, five cyclists died up until 9 April this year – all of them involving collisions with HGVs. Even half way through January, the country-wide tally stood at 13 fatalities. Year on year, deaths and injuries are on the rise – but the problem no one seems to want to identify, other than by giving it a brief mention now and then, is that the numbers of people cycling on the roads are also increasing at an alarming rate – a rise of 240% over the last five years.
It’s no wonder more people are dying.
Politicians seem blind to the risks, and continue to push cycling as some sort of panacea, encouraging more and more people to take it up. Local councils are opening more and more rental hubs so that people in suits and poorly-fitting crash hats (they’re always crooked, aren’t they?) can get a piece of the action.
Anyway, I noticed in todays Sun that columnist Rod Liddle was having a right go at them. Mind you, he’s been having a go in different places for a couple of years – it’s just that his column in The Sun is mainstream, and maybe represents some sort of sea change. I certainly hope so.
He starts by referring to a current viral video, where a motorist is seen threatening to punch a cyclist’s teeth down his throat. The cyclist in question had been riding in the road causing a hold up when there was apparently a cycle path right alongside. He finishes by listing five rules he believes should be introduced/ enforced:
- If there’s a cycle lane available, cyclists should be compelled to use it. Otherwise they get fined. Simples
- Cyclists who ignore red traffic lights should be dealt with in exactly the same way as car drivers who ignore red traffic lights
- The police should enforce the law about cycling on pavements. It’s illegal and carries a £500 fine. I wonder how many cyclists have actually been charged?
- Cycling two abreast on a two-lane [single carriageway] road should be made illegal
- Single cyclists on narrow roads should pull in to let cars overtake.
Of course, Mr Liddle probably now has a warrant out for his arrest as you are not allowed to say anything bad about cyclists. Nonetheless, his five rules make absolute sense. And one day they will have to be introduced.
This BBC story is quite vague, but Nottingham’s ring road was closed for several hours after a cyclist was in collision with a motorcycle on 21 April. The cyclist died. It was chaos on the roads (yet again). In this update, where the cyclist is named, the BBC has a caption which says:
The ring road has some of the heaviest rush hour traffic in Nottingham.
It also has cycle paths either side, to keep cyclists and traffic away from each other for precisely this reason.
There are no details about what actually happened in this case. However, it is worth noting that a lot of cyclists choose to ignore the cycle paths (except at red lights), many opting instead to purposely cause hold ups just to show that they “have a right to use the roads” (and they DO do that – I used to ride with a group of them). The number doing this has increased dramatically this year, and many of the guilty parties appear to be older people, predominantly male, who have just acquired their bikes.
As is typical, in the old monkey-see-monkey-do manner, they will have witnessed those “cool” Spandex Boys with their testosterone issues doing it and – without realising their own lack of skills – have decided they’ll have some of that as well.
The simple fact is that if you stay on a cycle path that was built especially for you to keep you out of traffic, and use crossings properly like other soft-bodied specimens (i.e. pedestrians), your chances of being involved in a collision with a motor vehicle on a major road during rush hour are virtually nil. Of course, pigs might fly, and if you therefore choose to ignore the cycle paths and attempt to ride amongst the traffic during said rush hour, your chances of getting hit rise astronomically.
I really do hope that there’s some sort of afterlife, because I cannot otherwise see how “being right” about cycling on busy roads instead of the adjacent cycle paths is of any use to you at all if you’re lying on a cold slab in a morgue.
These comments are general, by the way, and are in no way intended to address whatever happened in that original tragic incident on the ring road. Judging by the location of the white bicycle that’s been placed there, the cyclist was using the crossing.
Back in January, I reported on an ASA ruling against Cycling Scotland. It concerned a promotional ad about giving cyclists room on the roads, and someone (five people, in fact) had complained that it was irresponsible because the rider in question wasn’t wearing a helmet and was effectively blocking the road.
I ought to point out that my only beef with cyclists is how they get in the way, and I’m increasingly of the opinion that the vast majority are stupid and do it on purpose, while the rest of them are simply stupid. Personally, I don’t give two hoots about the content of these kinds of ads beyond the fact that cycling on roads shouldn’t be encouraged any further because it’s too dangerous for everyone concerned – cyclist and motorist – and there are too many cyclists venturing out on to busy roads as it is.
As I was writing this, I learned that a woman had been killed cycling in Nottingham after being in collision with a truck.
Anyway, actually getting to view the Cycling Scotland video isn’t as straightforward as you’d expect, though I’m pretty sure I could view it earlier this year. Oh yes, it’s on YouTube, but certainly when I follow the link I get the message shown here that I’m not allowed to view it in my country! Strange, when you consider that it’s actually been posted by Cycling Scotland (or the agency acting on their behalf), and Scotland isn’t independent just yet. Clearly, someone somewhere has ideas well above their station. However, as I said in the earlier article, Cycling Scotland was appealing against the original ASA ruling. I also said that it was clear that politics was involved, and this ban on anyone in England seeing the ad is precisely the type of thing I meant.
I also predicted that ASA would kowtow to Cycling Scotland, and so it has transpired in this new ruling. The original ASA page is no longer online – which is, in itself, highly suspect, as it should have been left so that the history involved was transparent.
As a result of these shady goings on, I have no doubt that there are some out there who would happily attempt to sue me if I posted the full video on the blog. However, my legal adviser has indicated that a snippet of the video is completely acceptable, so here’s the offending part.
My first observation was that cyclists round my way definitely don’t look like that! Most would look more at home swinging through the trees instead of gracing a catwalk. But I digress. The woman riding the bike isn’t wearing a helmet and – more importantly – she is riding right in the middle of the road. The ASA originally agreed this was irresponsible advertising when they ruled against it back in January, and I guess this is one reason why they have removed that original ruling so that no one can compare it side-by-side with the new 180-degree one (i.e. one that is the exact opposite of the former). Even so, they say:
We acknowledged Cycling Scotland’s explanation regarding why the cyclist featured in the final scene of the ad was placed in the primary position and that this was an appropriate position to depict the cyclist in given the specific road conditions.
I see. And young children will be fully aware of this and not think it’s OK to ride in the middle of the road. Nice one, ASA.
But this comment from Cycling Scotland really made me laugh:
Cycling Scotland further commented that cycling had a high benefit:disbenefit ratio, even when factoring in injuries and referred to the national cycling charity (CTC) report.
I would counter that this statement has a high stupid:disstupid ratio, even when factoring in the obvious politics involved. The Highway Code says:
- be considerate of other road users…
Riding in the middle of the road, blocking traffic, putting yourself in danger, and forcing others into danger as they overtake wide (especially on country lanes, as depicted here) has been “overlooked” by the ASA. I wonder how much pressure was put on them to do so?
This story came through on the newsfeeds. It’s totally mislabelled as it does not – in any way, shape, or form – show “Britain’s Worst Drivers”. That label is merely a demonstration of the crass ignorance of the Yahoo! hacks who wrote it.
It concerns a video montage created by an anonymous cyclist with a helmet camera, titled “York Drivers”. The cyclist in question seems to be one of those people for whom a little knowledge is clearly a dangerous thing, because in his attempts to discredit drivers he has inadvertently shown quite clearly how recklessly cyclists – including himself – behave on the roads.
I’ve linked to the video below – click the image and YouTube will open in a new window – and it will be interesting to see if it remains on view when he realises how vividly it highlights his own shortcomings.
[EDIT: The video is no longer available – there’s a surprise. However, the comedian who took it hasn’t managed to get it wiped from the news story in the link above.]
Let’s be clear about this – many of the drivers in the video could hardly be regarded as particularly adept behind the wheel. Even so, very few of them could be said to be demonstrating anything other than normal behaviour. The problem is that all of the cyclists involved are behaving exactly the same, if not worse!
The very first example in the montage shows a cyclist attempting to undertake a car at a left-turn junction. The car doesn’t indicate – but anyone, be they cyclist or motorist – should know that you do not overtake near a junction, and that undertaking is especially dangerous.
The second clip shows an oncoming van turning right – and he’s signalling. The dipstick with the headcam hasn’t considered the fact that he was riding at speed whilst hidden from the oncoming driver’s sight behind another van. The van driver couldn’t possibly have seen him, and he – the cyclist – should have been much more careful.
Numerous other clips are focused on cars parked on double yellow lines, but none of this slows down our cameraman very much, and he does not stop for a second. He’d much rather squeeze through tiny gaps when the safest thing to do would be not to. Bearing in mind he has a camera on his head, there doesn’t appear to be much (i.e. any) shoulder-checking before passing any of these obstacles. He also sounds like one of those riders who has a little too much testosterone in his veins, and you can hear him muttering and grunting at everything.
In another clip, he rides on to a roundabout without any consideration for his own safety, and then grunts again when a car turns in front of him without signalling. Perhaps he hasn’t heard of the Highway Code (what am I saying, he’s a cyclist – the Highway Code doesn’t apply to him), and the part where it says you should never rely on peoples signals (and, by implication, lack thereof).
Just after that, he appears to ride off a cycle path and on to a pedestrian-only pavement, and has an issue with a car that has U-turned back into a road, preventing him from shooting straight across the junction (and over double yellow lines, because there is no cycle junction there).
Later in the video, he homes in on people using mobile phones behind the wheel. In doing this, his camera shows other cyclists riding at speed in heavy traffic out of the designated cycle lane. In one example, a female is riding much faster than the traffic, which is virtually at a standstill in a queue. This is suicidal if a car tries to cut across and doesn’t see you – which is more likely if the cyclist is flying up on the inside, hidden behind other cars. It’s even more questionable when you’ve got a camera on your head, are craning your neck specifically to get footage of the drivers breaking the Law as you whizz by, and have already identified that said drivers might not be paying attention because they’re farting about with their phones.
Near the end, the cameraman is screaming at drivers who are actually nowhere near as close to him as he seems to think they are. One clip suggests that there is a cycle path off the road, which he isn’t using, and he wonders why he is almost flattened by a lorry. He even appears to have moved over into the mouth of the junction to give a lorry space before it goes past.
As I said, the standard of driving depicted in the video is no worse than you’d find anywhere in the country. That doesn’t mean that is is particularly good or right, but it is part of the norm – and anyone on a bike who had any sense would try to avoid it rather than go pelting in as if they had special privileges, and then wondering why they almost got killed. In many of the clips, the anonymous cyclist in question is at least as much in the wrong as the drivers he has filmed. In most of the others he (or other cyclists) can certainly be seen to be less than lily white.
Maybe I should put up my own video of the routine behaviour I experience with cyclists. If I wanted to put them in a poor light, I wouldn’t have to edit much out.
I originally embedded the video in this article using YouTube’s embed code. The anonymous cyclist has been in contact with me threatening litigation, even though I pointed out that embedding the video was within YouYube’s terms of service. Said anonymous cyclist has also been demanding my name so he can “report me to ORDIT” because of my “dangerous attitude”.
I had to draw his attention to the use of various words and phrases in the above text which clearly identify that the motorists in many of the clips were in the wrong (at least in part). However, he seems to take exception to the fact that I also pointed out that virtually all the cyclists were also at fault, and that such behaviour – from both cyclists AND motorists – is relatively normal and is something that has to be dealt with when it happens. After all, martyrs cannot pursue matters using more sensible means.
I have spoken to my legal advisers and it has been pointed out that although the article as it stood was not in breach of any copyright, if the owner of the YouTube page removed the embed code feature without warning, then it might become so. I reasoned that in order for someone to try and save face over this article they might resort to such actions in order to create an issue where there was none before. The anonymous cyclist has been openly sharing his video with anyone who holds the same views as him, but he appears to be prepared to adopt different methods for those who hold a different opinion. For that reason, I have now provided a direct link to the YouTube page where the video resides. If you click the image, above, it will take you there – or
click this link to get the same page [EDIT: The video is no longer available – there’s a surprise. However, the comedian who took it hasn’t managed to get it wiped from the news story in the link at the start of this article]. Alternatively, go to YouTube and search for “York Drivers”. This is DEFINITELY not litigatious in any way – either now, or in future.
It’s funny that the Vigilante Cyclist has removed the video from YouTube. I bet he wishes he’d kept his mouth shut before submitting it to the media, because he can’t get it wiped from their archives quite so easily.
A reader sent me this link to an article in the Daily Mash. Titled “Roads are not a velodrome”, it pokes fun at that spiralling number of wannabe athletes who behave like apes on our roads as they take their fragile, expensive, two-wheeled toys that they can’t handle – either physically or mentally – out on to routes which are already dangerous.
Last week, on the Virgin roundabout in Colwick, for example, two of these twats were riding side-by-side and deliberately straight-lined it – still side-by-side. The retard who gave me the evil-eye is hopefully on some sort of court order to prevent him having children for the sake of society. He really shouldn’t be allowed to breed, but unfortunately people like him can usually do it asexually – and I’ll bet asexual sex is something he IS good at. Because cycling certainly doesn’t make the list.