Why do cyclists try to undertake left turning trucks ?

[S100HP]

Graveworm said:

S100HP said:

Are people watching a different video to me? There is barely anything the cyclist could do differently in that situation. At a real push he could have eased off the cadence as the van started to slow, but it would have made naff all difference to the outcome. He had no time to react really.

He had about 5 seconds from when the van was alongside and slowing, bikes brake not as well as cars, but braking sheds about 25mph per second in a car so there was enough time if he was minded.

Try watching the video again. The lights come on at 4 seconds, he's hit the van at 6 seconds (Mail video)

[Graveworm]

S100HP said:

Try watching the video again. The lights come on at 4 seconds, he's hit the van at 6 seconds (Mail video)

Watch the full video. The van is travelling noticeably quicker and catching the cyclist comfortably until it slows significantly at 59 seconds as it comes alongside it is also drifting over the line as it does this.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 14th February 11:19

[Murph7355]

Dont like rolls said:

I do not cycle in London these days, in fact I do not go often now but I used to....you have a car passing/junction every 50 yards9ish) on most central roads, how slow should you go ? In town the instinct is that there is a hazard there every time, the van driver just turned without thought.

If you cut into a pit lane across a lane/car/m-bike like that on a track there would be a few asking questions about your skills.

The point you seem to have missed is that road and track driving are not the same. So that comparison is moot.

In answer to your question about "how slow"... Slow enough not to get killed.

Irrespective of what mode of transport I am using on the public road, I go as slow as I need to in order to anticipate that every other road user is an idiot who will do something stupid.

The more exposed my mode of transport, the slower I'll go if necessary.

Road users are morons, but as others have noted, being in the right counts for st all if you're dead or seriously injured.

[ukbabz]

julian64 said:

Why would you say this, trying to dominate the road as a cyclist is a terrible thing to do.?

When I was coaching my son on his motorcycle there were a few golden rules. One of them was blindspots. Its inevitable you will be in peoples blindspots while riding. The rule was to know when you are in someone blindspot, and start counting, never get two '2'.

On a motorway when a lorry was overtaking you that would mean dropping back the minute the lorry on your right could no longer see you to make sure the time in the blindspot was limited to a maximum of two seconds. If needed you would brake to do this but most of the time it was simply coming off the throttle.

Its not right that a lorry or in this case a van requires you to brake or alter what you are doing but it is the safe, defensive thing to do.

---AGAIN FOR CLARITY I BELIEVE THE VAN DRIVER IS 100% AT FAULT-----

Sorry, hoped my post was clear that it was being flippant. The issue would be people going mental at a bike not in the cycle lane!

[Dont like rolls]

For those saying the cyclist "could" have protected himself with better observation/road craft.

Road runs to a corner, so normal for the van to encroach a little, (not much of a flag if you see it constantly)
Van advances past but only gets a yard ahead (if that) at 1:04- 1:05
Cyclist is alongside the Van at 1:04 so cannot see the rear lights..... all he has is the small side repeater. (is it even working ?) (see point 1)
Van ahead but a yard ? 1:04.5 (point 2)
Van brakes hard and turns into cyclist at 1:06

Not a chance whatever they do.

https://youtu.be/cwESJvi1qvk


Maybe limit cyclists to 10mph with heavy enforcement to protect them at junctions ?

[FukeLreeman]

cicada273 said:

Excuse the Mail link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7999459/T...

Poor fellow !

Are you stupid?

[nickfrog]

markyb_lcy said:

nickfrog said:

RobM77 said:

I don't think it's wrong to talk about defensive driving/cycling though.

In the context of this thread though, what, else do you think the cyclist could have done?

This question has already been answered. Read the thread.

You probably mean this:

RobM77 said:

The correct defensive approach for the cyclist would be to not pass any vehicle by any junction, but obviously that can get quite onerous in London when there are junctions every 5 seconds. I do this, but I admit it takes me much longer to get anywhere in a busy town and it can get quite tedious.

I did read it and thought it was a wind up.

[BlackTails]

Murph7355 said:

The more exposed my mode of transport, the slower I'll go if necessary.

That isn't such a good idea. Generally, you minimise danger around you by minimising the speed differential between and other moving (and so not wholly predictable) objects. Riding a bike or driving a car slowly in fast traffic is dangerous, to you and others, just as riding a bike or driving a car fast in slow moving traffic is.

The differential in the direction of the road between these two was not great. But then the van driver stood on the brakes and pulled across the rider all in the space of less than 2 seconds, aka, a total dick move.

[FiF]

So nobody wants to comment of the Jeremy Vine video linked earlier. Totally on topic.

[markyb_lcy]

nickfrog said:

markyb_lcy said:

nickfrog said:

RobM77 said:

I don't think it's wrong to talk about defensive driving/cycling though.

In the context of this thread though, what, else do you think the cyclist could have done?

This question has already been answered. Read the thread.

You probably mean this:

RobM77 said:

The correct defensive approach for the cyclist would be to not pass any vehicle by any junction, but obviously that can get quite onerous in London when there are junctions every 5 seconds. I do this, but I admit it takes me much longer to get anywhere in a busy town and it can get quite tedious.

I did read it and thought it was a wind up.

I did mean that, but not exclusively.

There are a number of suggestions from drivers and cyclists alike. They are similar in their reasoning.

If you don’t see it then fine, but can I gratuitously suggest you don’t cycle in London, for your own safety.

[chow pan toon]

markyb_lcy said:

nickfrog said:

markyb_lcy said:

nickfrog said:

RobM77 said:

I don't think it's wrong to talk about defensive driving/cycling though.

In the context of this thread though, what, else do you think the cyclist could have done?

This question has already been answered. Read the thread.

You probably mean this:

RobM77 said:

The correct defensive approach for the cyclist would be to not pass any vehicle by any junction, but obviously that can get quite onerous in London when there are junctions every 5 seconds. I do this, but I admit it takes me much longer to get anywhere in a busy town and it can get quite tedious.

I did read it and thought it was a wind up.

I did mean that, but not exclusively.

There are a number of suggestions from drivers and cyclists alike. They are similar in their reasoning.

If you don’t see it then fine, but can I gratuitously suggest you don’t cycle in London, for your own safety.

I might start doing this in my car. Can't be too careful.

[TyrannosauRoss Lex]

FiF said:

So nobody wants to comment of the Jeremy Vine video linked earlier. Totally on topic.

In that instance, whilst the driver is technically "wrong", as a cyclist I'd never undertake, or attempt to, a lorry (or car) like that, you have to assume people are not going to indicate. In the case of the original post here though, I think the cyclist was totally reasonable and the blame lies 100% with the driver of the truck. The driver should not have attempted to overtake the cyclist at such a short distance from his turn. The fact he slows down alongside the cyclist almost makes it appear intentional.

[lj04]

rxe said:

Driver at fault, but it shows how crap cycle lanes are.

They slap a bit of paint on the road and call it a cycle lane. It deliberately puts the cyclist in conflict with cars and lorries, it’s just really st design. Looking in your mirrors for an undertaking vehicle is not a natural thing to do (which is why undertaking is frowned upon on motorways).

This. I hate cycling in the things

[nickfrog]

markyb_lcy said:

I did mean that, but not exclusively.

There are a number of suggestions from drivers and cyclists alike. They are similar in their reasoning.

If you don’t see it then fine, but can I gratuitously suggest you don’t cycle in London, for your own safety.

I don't think the cyclist could or should have done anything different. Don't worry too much about my safety on a bike, I'll just pull a massive manual to maximise visibility everytime I go past a side street.

[talksthetorque]

oyster said:

talksthetorque said:

As I've said before, 100% driver's fault, but the cyclist could have chosen to be further back when there was a junction ahead.

Can I ask you a question?

If you are in the process of being overtaken as you pass a junction, how can you then be further back at that point?
Physically, how is that possible?

The cyclist had been passed by the time the junction arrived.
So yes, you can ask the question but I'm not going to answer it as it's not much use to you if you can't tell the difference between passing a junction and approaching a junction.

[CrutyRammers]

Dont like rolls said:

johnwilliams77 said:

JPJPJP said:

If you are involved in an incident with a cyclist, posts like this could be a small part of the evidence - it would count against you

Obviously neither of you are familiar with 10 Pence Short's prison thread. It has happened.

[markyb_lcy]

nickfrog said:

markyb_lcy said:

I did mean that, but not exclusively.

There are a number of suggestions from drivers and cyclists alike. They are similar in their reasoning.

If you don’t see it then fine, but can I gratuitously suggest you don’t cycle in London, for your own safety.

I don't think the cyclist could or should have done anything different. Don't worry too much about my safety on a bike, I'll just pull a massive manual to maximise visibility everytime I go past a side street.

Manual?

[Dont like rolls]

talksthetorque said:

The cyclist had been passed by the time the junction arrived.
So yes, you can ask the question but I'm not going to answer it as it's not much use to you if you can't tell the difference between passing a junction and approaching a junction.

Just to correct you:

The cyclist was past by the van by about 3 feet for about 1/2 a second.

[Bujinkhal]

markyb_lcy said:

Manual?

A stunt, basically a wheely.

[markyb_lcy]

Bujinkhal said:

markyb_lcy said:

Manual?

A stunt, basically a wheely.

Ah!

Then good luck with that one (to the original poster)