I Can See Why The Police Didn't Take Action
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2024
- Unless you ride impeccably on the road, there's always a chance that the Police will draw the same conclusion for any videos you submit.
Camera Affiliate Links. NOW USE CODE 'ASHLEY'
Motorcycle, Bicycle and Equestrian - Techalogic - techalogic.co....
Car - Viofo - viofouk.co.uk/...
Motorcycle - Innov - innovv.co.uk/a...
XNITO Cycle Helmets - xnito.com/ASHLEY137 Use code 'ASHLEY137' to recieve 10% off your order
If you're worried about a situation, hold back, don't carry on riding in to it! You teach that all the time!
@@stevecole9674 I feel this way when riding a motorbike. However, when riding a bike I tend to be more irritable and more willing to pick up a fight than when I’m on a motorbike.
@@Dellvmnyam Interesting. Are you fuelling up enough? Hangry? Taking on too long rides while fitness not optimal. See if you can fix it, as it can lead to mistakes happening. Cycling takes extra energy out of us for sure.
Yes, better than being under the back wheels dead!
I rarely see cyclists slow down for hazards, and that includes pavement cyclists approaching pedestrians.
I agree with that. I don’t think it exonerates the lorry driver in the slightest and I really don’t like the response from the police that puts the onus on the cyclist. It just allows this lorry driver to carry on doing this. Perhaps next time speeds will be higher, in the wet and the cyclist can’t avoid a drain cover. The result could be very very different.
Never ever carry on into a disappearing gap, no matter what mode of transport you're using. It'll only end in tears.
Yup - something I fortunately learnt from seeing other people learn it the hard way rather than myself - don't catch under braking, don't continue into a disappearing gap. Regardless of who is right or wrong.
HGVs especially, it's often harder for them to see the cyclist in the mirror. And the trailer cuts in a lot when turning. I also apply the same rules when driving, staggered formation at roundabouts.
@@andrewnorris5415But it's great to have an HGV shield on the right, when cycling onto a tricky roundabout.
@@andrewnorris5415 You need mirrors to see out the front of a HGV now, do you?
At one point you cycled through a cemetery, a fitting reminder not to try and battle a HGV slow down swallow that pride and live another day
Or don't try and dangerously and pointlessly overtake in a multiple tone killing machine.
@@maskofsan1ty not something the cyclist has any control over though. Backing out of a dangerous situation is.
@@Chomp-Rock Exactly. I've just looked up a little headstone verse as I couldn't remember it exactly:
Here lies the body of Thomas Grey,
Who died defending his right of way.
He was perfectly right as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
I see that a similar verse was published in 1916. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I feel like the cyclist would have and a more compelling case if they were able to show they had to slow down or stop because of the dangerous overtake. Personally, I wouldn't put myself in such a risky position no matter how much I believe I have a right to particular space on the road, just not worth it (imo).
Good brief Ashley
They didn't put themself in that position, unless you mean by not taking the primary position to prevent the HGV even attempting the overtake. They'd have dad to outbrake the lorry to extract themselves, which wasn't obviously possible.
My thoughts to. If the cyclist had made an obvious adjustment to speed, the police would likely have taken action. That then becomes cut and dry careless driving by the lorry driver. As the cyclist was able to proceed, it would be far harder to prove in a court the issue with the lorry drivers actions.
Don't say I like it, but I get it.
My first thought - Brake for feck sake!!
I take it this is aimed at the HGV driver otherwise this is the attitude that gets people killed on UK roads.
You can take off at a limited speed before the bicycle becomes unstable. It is not a car that will stay on 4 wheels.
Exactly, could feel it coming from a mile off. It felt was as if the lorry was expecting the cyclist to brake with "body language" and giving plenty of warning. That he did not was dangerous to his own life. HGVs cut in when turning and often cannot see a cyclist in their mirrors at all times!
BFFS! 👍
They didn't even have to brake, they could have just stopped pedalling. They rode straight into that situation, seriously risking their life to make a point.
I thought the police response was reasonable.
Indeed, but if we are accepting that the lorry driver’s overtake was unsafe then they still should have proceeded with the intention of prosecution.
@qasimmir7117 Why? They almost certainly wouldn't win.
@@qasimmir7117 I think prosecution would be pointless, the judicial system is already too busy. However what I see as a happy medium would be to contact said lorry driver, inform them their driving was sub-standard and potentially dangerous, link the footage, and warn any further similar behaviour would result in punishment. Driving a lorry isn't a right it's a privilege, and a very dangerous one at that...
@@thecrispymaster
Yeah well it should win if the premise that Ashley spoke of in the video.
@@Albert5522
A warning yes could be good.
I cycle 5K miles a year, so not one of those motorist "cyclists" who comments. The lorry made it so clear what it was going to do. It was crazy for the cyclist not to slow down to accommodate him. There was so much time to work this out and see it coming "from a mile off" to use the correct praise. We must all allow some consideration to others. The lorry may have otherwise had to wait a long time if did not try to pass then, and the cyclist only had a break a little and would have wasted seconds at the most. Extra thought after listening to Ash: The lorry was in the wrong and did try to squeeze the cyclist out. But it was not excessively dangerous as so much warning as given. Just don't mess around with big HGVs as cyclists, back off, their rear ends can cut in suddenly.
Indeed fella. The space that the HGV driver gave showed (IMO) that they weren't trying to bully the cyclist. I cycle about the same as you (5-6K miles/year) and try to be extra accommodating towards HGVs when they're behind me (pulling in when it's safe to let them get past). It slows me down for 10 secs if that and... most of the time they'll toot a friendly "thanks".
Just because someone else is in the wrong is no justification to be negligent with your own safety.
I Cycle to work every day and drive a Hgv for a living. I would not of attempted that overtake. On the cycle I would of dropped eased off the pace as soon I seen starting to overtake. I suppose i take these steps where other cyclist and HGV drivers wont, because I know what the challenges are both sat on that saddle as well as sitting in that cab.
Really glad to have drivers like you about. I often see HGVs giving me consideration and think, "I bet he cycles pretty regularly in traffic". I also try and let them go where I can.
Truckers are often better the car drivers at allowing for cyclists and horses , thanks guys 👍
Ok the lorry driver was driving without due consideration but the police response was appropriate due to the fact that the cyclist had plenty of opportunity to back off but continued without hesitation with the aim of making the situation more appealing to his cause. Bad move !
I would have definitely slowed a little to let the lorry past, and to get myself out of obvious danger. The cyclist didn’t seem to help themself. The lorry driver has made a mistake (I’ve yet to meet someone who has never made a mistake), but once that gap between lorry and pavement begins to narrow, the cyclist has to take evasive action or risk serious injury. I’m speaking with 65 years cycling experience.
Isn't that Rule 168, the last part of this sentence? "Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass" The rules go both ways, the overtaker as well as the overtaken are supposed to work together.
When did cyclists need to pass a test and read the highway code
@@abt833 most cyclists also drive a car. So your argument is most likely moot.
@@ArminGrewe you may be correct that many people have a driver licence but still your comment is inaccurate because its not directed to cyclists
@@abt833 while there are specific sections for pedestrians (rules 1-35), cyclists (rules 59-82) the overall HC applies to everyone. Rule 168 sits in "Using the road (159 to 203)", which applies to everyone, including cyclists. For example rule 160 includes "drive or ride with both hands on the wheel or handlebars where possible", clearly meant for drivers, bikers and cyclists.
Tell that to the HGV drivers on dual carriageways sitting side by side attempting to overtake for several miles whilst holding up everyone else....
I'm not a cyclist myself but i ride motorcycles on the road and I always advise everyone doesn't matter who is right or wrong if you end up death ride defensive and everything should be OK for most of the time if i would be in this position and another vehicle would overtake me i would reduce the speed to allow the vehicle to get back in lane defensive driving you learn this when you learn how to drive/ride
We often hear Ashley saying something along the lines of “best flow for all traffic “ and “ make it a non event” which is important as we all make mistakes , best not turn someone’s mistake in to a catastrophe. I’d rather be in the wrong and alive , rather than the rather unpleasant alternative 😉
The lorry driver did what I find many bus drivers do when I'm cycling: they overtake with enough space, but they don't consider the size of their vehicle - if they were driving a car it would have been a perfect overtake - but they pull in too soon, forgetting about the back end of their vehicle.
EVERYONE ON THE ROAD HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT. Drill this into your head people. If you deliberately create a dangerous situation, you don't get a free pass just because someone else did something wrong and you were technically allowed to occupy a particular space, you're just as much at fault as the other guy if you could have avoided the situation but didn't through stubborness. This goes whether you're in a car or a truck or a bicycle or any other road going vehicle.
Cyclist was stupid in not slowing down
I agree upon the truck being too close. Do remember that it only takes both of two parts to fail.
As a cyclist and a car driver, I know that many cyclists believe they have the right away.
I I as a cyclist want to live longer, I’m respecting that I’m delaying traffic and observe my chances to let other cars pass.
Of course there are idiots in the traffic, but remember that not all of them are in the cars.
Stay safe
I think from a legal standpoint, the police gave a reasonable and direct response.
It would be good if the police could as a recourse send out written citations and log persistent offenses for the same person and vehicle identified on film.
Police response fair. Lorry should not be impeded indefinitely, cyclist just drove into danger to make a point.
In my view: the lorry driver gave the cyclist a wide berth (even crossing the center line); actually passed the cyclist (I can see three rear wheels), but being an HGV has to brake approaching a roundabout (both to lose momentum and in case they need to give way to traffic from the right). The cyclist made little, or no, effort to slow down (even cycling into a potential "pinch-point") to use the lorry, screening traffic from the right, so they didn't have to brake. I can see why the police took no action; the lorry driver exhibited consideration to other road users, the cyclist did not and then even less by supplying insufficient evidence (as nothing happened). Is this where we find out the cyclist has been holding the lorry up for miles, then tried a Jeremy Vine?
So I agree with the police statement (for once) "...anticipating what might be occurring ahead... would have avoided what occurs".
I agree with the Police statement. The cyclist could have held back as he approached the roundabout. I don't think the lorry did anything wrong. I'm now a cyclist, and I wouldn't have taken it any further.
The best way to avoid this situation is to take primary when approaching a junction. Also, have an escape plan should the driver not stay back. In this situation, there was a dropped kerb on the left that offered an escape route up onto the pavement.
The issue I've found with taking primary at pinch points is that some drivers take offence by it and try to squeeze past. I've had this with a bus once, where if I was an inch further to the right, I'd have almost certainly been hospitalised.
@@glenn1534 this is why you also need an escape plan. Most of the time moving left into the space you’ve created by riding primary is enough.
@@shm5547 True, and that makes sense as to why riding primary in these situations is best. But often the first point at which I notice the drivers coming too close to me is when they come into my eyesight, which would be too late if they were driving close enough to knock me down.
@@glenn1534 that's why I always ride with a mirror. I add a radar if riding out of town. This enables me to keep an eye on every single vehicle approaching from behind.
Very close but the cyclist isn't being defensive enough. Still pedalling even as the lorry nears the pinch point on the roundabout. I would have stopped pedalling, maybe braked, and then if you are annoyed about lost speed then make it back through some drafting of the lorry for a bit on the exit of the roundabout.
Ah, still putting onus onto the victim. This doesn't ever work to reduce casualties because motorists take even more liberties as the focus goes onto the vulnerable persons to do 'something'.
I feel like the Lorry mis timed the overtake and didn't have enough time to make the manouver in full.
So driver at fault
That's basically it. A lot of drivers seem to see a cyclist as a stationary object, not one moving along the road. They plan their overtake based on passing a fixed point at the speed they're travelling at, and ignore the much lower relative passing speed they're actually going to achieve.
How dare they make a mistake!
@@Chomp-Rock even the rear wheels will kill someone. Stop simping for stupid.
'simping'
You spend too much time on the internet.
As much as I agree with your summation, I would also add that reporting this wasn't wasted, as the police are now holding a record of that vehicle, and although no direct action has been taken, you can take it to the bank that there will be something recorded with VOSA, and there will be a mark on the operators licence, even if it is just a note.
100% with the police on this one. Cyclist could have slowed down a little to make this a non event at the roundabout.
I think the cyclist didn't slow down in order to get the protection of the lorry from traffic approaching from the right, with right of way. Slowing down until he had a clear view may have meant stopping. Poor cycling was a contributory factor.
As a cyclist I have to agree. Firstly, the lorry driver was clearly in the wrong, and did not have space to complete the overtake in time, and so squeezed out the cyclist. That said, it's no use being in the right if you're avoidably putting yourself in danger. A bike is ALWAYS going to lose in an argument with a lorry, and facing the late overtake, the cyclist was foolish not to simply accept the (unfair) situation and to slow down to reduce the risk of collision.
Yeah that's pretty much the long and short of it, even if you are 100% in the right, kicking off just makes things worse and gives us all a bad name.
We cyclists already have to deal with the Facebook/gammon anti-bike lot who if they could would have us all off the road, if the cyclist is always calm and collected (unless a collision has occurred) then people will see a person instead of the trope.
As an ex lorry driver, yes I would agree with you that the HGV driver should of possibly waited until after the roundabout, as the cyclist could of been turning left or right and the HGV wouldn’t have needed to overtake.
But I will say that it’s very difficult for a lorry driver on our roads as I’m sure it is for everyone else.
The lorry driver had been waiting behind the cycle, and has a limited time to drive each day. When he passed, he probably thought he had enough space and may well be surprised how close he got. He did try to give plenty of space. I think it is correct that the police chose not to prosecute, but a visit to the company, with the video, could prove educational to that driver, and all his colleagues. Perhaps Ashley could highlight this vid to them.
Pausing for first thoughts: the lorry should have waited till past the roundabout to overtake. It wasn't possible to complete the overtake maintaining a safe passing distance. However, once passed, or very nearly, nothing forced the cycllist to maintain speed at the cost of dangerous proximity to an artic through effectively a double bend. Choose speed, compromise safety.
After the review - no further action does seem slack. Especially as the pass looked worse the second time, even of the cab, whereafter it gets closer. Not saying prosecute, but at best the driver needs to be told what was wrong with that.
@@ChrisBrown-px1oy how many month would you put?
You can hear that the cyclist did not slacken his pace and stayed within the danger zone. That was not smart! I get the impression the cyclist was more focused on making a point than reaching their destination.
The lorry had a clear road when he overtook and the roundabout was also clear to proceed. A sensible response would have been for the cyclist to slow down to allow the lorry to pass then if clear behind to follow in the lorry’s wake.
The police response was correct.
As a road cyclist, I would have backed off immediately. However, it can be very dangerous being overtaken by any vehicle just before a roundabout, as the vehicle may have to stop, during, or just after the overtake, and trying to match a motor vehicles deceleration in a bicycle is very difficult, if not impossible. Both road users are in the wrong.
Particularly when it's a frantic overtake - followed by an immediate left turn...
When im cycling I trt not to hinder traffic.Get on the path or slow down on straights to allow traffic to pass.Seems to many cyclists are Karen's who like to argue
@@JohnJohn-cu7nk on the path? You have every right to use the road as any other road user. And deliboratly slowing down does not necessarily increase safety in a given situation. Maybe you are the Karen, John.
Yes, the cyclist could've done better, but I don't see why that makes the driver's overtake less dangerous/illegal. Definitely comes across as victim blaming.
Okay, some may think this is a little naughty, but...
If the cyclist applied his brakes a little as the HGV trailer started squeezing him out, he could then got himself behind the trailer rather than next to it.
Once behind the trailer, he could've taken up the primary position and enjoyed a good bit of slipstreaming. He might not have kept up with the HGV for long, but he could at least have enjoyed a little power-boost and got himself up the road a little quicker than anticipated.
🚛 💨 🚴♂️ 💨
I ride motorcycles as well as pedal cycles and am equally cautious on both. That cyclist deliberately rode into a disappearing gap. He is an idiot. I don't know anyone who rides a motorcycle as recklessly as most pedal cyclists ride. We know that if we rode motorcycles like they ride pedal cycles, we'd soon be dead.
How can cyclists try to get drivers convicted when as an example this cyclist complains the truck failed to give sufficient room but then continues to place himself in danger by continuing to cycle within inches of the trucks near side and probably in his blind spot. Have you ever driven a truck Ashley? There was ample room and time for the cyclist to help the situation but no he didn’t he chose to put himself in more danger. A complete idiot.
What we see here is a lack of planning from both parties. I'll bet a penny to a pound that the lorry driver didn't _plan_ that overtake, they just took the opportunity as it arrived without planning out how much space they would need to cleanly overtake the cyclist. Similarly the cyclist didn't plan either. The possibility of the overtake should have been obvious if adequate observations were taken. Then there's a plan to formulate which could either go "Take primary now to prevent an overtake until after the roundabout and then take secondary and expect to be overtaken at the first opportunity" OR "be prepared to be overtaken now, and adjust speed and position accordingly".
Think a warning letter so at least the HGV driver / company is also aware of thier responsibilities.
@@nickramsden5366 Yss, more effective than Op SNAP in this case. Noting to stop the cammer emailing the company!, don't have to give personal details and could even use a burner email adddress for the purpose.
@@JustAlex848 RUBBISH. It can be done by standard form letters to the registered keeper.
It's a shame that incidents like this are continually happening. Yes, the cyclist should have slowed to avoid getting so close to the trailer wheels, but why do vulnerable road users have to keep doing this? Driving standards are quite poor in this country and its so frustrating that some clown can be sat in a 40 tonne vehicle, bullying vulnerable road users out of the way. If a prosecution didnt seem likely, at least a warning letter could have been sent to the truck company. Our road culture is messed up and people simply do not care when behind the wheel. If driver behaviour cannot be sorted out, its time to invest in more segregated bike infrastructure.
cyclist should make space for the real traffic.
@@deDANIEL11609 The real traffic that causes all of the congestion on the roads? Please define 'real' traffic. Are you aware that cyclists have as much right as motorists to be on the road? You probably aren't because you are too stupid to understand that.
"why do vulnerable road users have to keep doing this?"
All road users should keep doing this. It's the way we all make things better, by accommodating other road users' mistakes, "making things a non-event" as Ashley puts it. Not being suicidal is a good way of sustaining your own life. There are a lot of people on our busy roads, we should all accommodate each other as much as possible. The road should be seen as a "system", where everyone can choose to make things better or make things worse.
"Driving standards are quite poor in this country"
They're not, really. They are among the best in the world.
"people simply do not care when behind the wheel"
I don't think that's the case. There are many a lot more cyclists who have little consideration for other road users. They should take more responsibility for their own safety and to ensure the safe flow of all traffic.
@@paulsengupta971 Bullsh*t. Absolute bullsh*t. Driving standards are extremely poor. Many people are killed and injured every day by poor drivers. You only have to spend a short amount of time on a bicycle on the roads to see plenty of examples of drivers not caring or giving a damn.
Just because roads are busy doesn't mean people can drive like clowns.
There is only one group of road users constantly putting the lives of vulnerable road users and other road users at risk and it isn't cyclists.
How on earth do cyclist risk the safe flow of traffic? Another bullsh*t comment.
As you say, every road user has to drive to accommodate the idiots. Idiot drivers seem to be the main issue.
Give us on bicycles some decent segregated infrastructure and we won't be in your way.
@@paulsengupta971Classic victim blaming motormormativity inspired reply. Stating everyone has to accommodate poor road behaviour, but poor cycling is worth being singled out?
Who do you think causes by far the most death and destruction on our roads? Who is by far the largest group of people others are having to avoid on a daily basis? Vehicle drivers.
You don't think driving standards are poor? Ridiculous. Come and ride a bike around South Lincolnshire for a bit. That will change your mind.
See, even you are doing it. Its why is asked why us vulnerable road users are having to constantly avoid being squished by impatient, non caring drivers who aren't paying attention.
As for the comment about cyclists affecting the safe flow of traffic. Give it a rest. Cyclists do not risk the safety of people sat in multi tonne metal boxes.
A complaint to the trucking company might have made more sense.
I would have thought "words of advice" would have been a sensible police response. This said I don't know the distance but I'm sure someone can work it out. However the problem on the road is the attitude as you say of wanting to be right. Two wrongs don't make a right.
why would anyone use the roads? cyclist should make space for the real traffic.
@@deDANIEL11609 Not sure what you mean? Cyclists are just as entitled to ride as car drivers to drive!
@@sebastien79a you hope so
Reminds me of a dodgy situation in Wales. I was cycling and a HGV overtook me. A driver in front of the HGV suddenly decided to turn into a right turn lane and quickly pulled to a halt. The Lorry could not get past on the left of the driver without cutting into me. So I braked very quickly! The HGV also braked very quickly and managed to stop in time behind the car, giving it multiple beeps of its loud horn. Just shows we need to think carefully when around HGVs. The driver assumed the HGV could get by to the left or brake in time. There was only just enough time for that heavy HGV to brake and pulling left would have made him hit me! I had it covered anyway and quickly braked myself to get out of harm's way. That situation came out of nowhere! If unsure that a HGV may cut you up - brake. I am glad i did. I could hear the HGV brakes working hard with hisses and the ABS activating! The HGV driver reacted quickly. I even waved at him (or her?) to thank them. Not sure if they saw me wave.
Interesting to note that Ashley seems annoyed at Mikey blocking him, yet comments are being deleted here.
I don't delete any comments.
@@AshleyNeal-JustCycling UA-cam then? Multiple comments have disappeared from here. No swearing in them or any form of profanity.
Even when I see an offence being committed I know that any infringement written needs to be able to stand up to examination in court, so evidence has to be gathered that is irrefutable. This footage was not sufficient to secure a conviction in court, should the driver challenge it.
The lorry gave plenty of room, it would have made sense for the cyclist to slow down and assist the lorry in passing. Taking the lorry on the inside at the roundabout is very dangerous since the cycle may be in the lorry blindspot.
Yes. The driver gave plenty of room The lorry driver also committed to a pass that they couldn’t safely complete and attempted to bully another road user into braking. The cyclist was also stubborn in not braking to prevent being side swiped by the rear of the box.
No matey - The driver only gave room for the CAB passing the bike: The end of his trailer was too damn close.
It is fine until 0:22 then the CYCLIST should have backed out of it....they would have in a car... (then again seeing some idiot drivers maybe not.....)
The entire UA-cam micro-business of dash and cycle cam channels depends on the cammer being idiotic/pigheaded enough to practice zero self-preservation. All of these trivial encounters merely require just one of the parties to do the right thing and suddenly you have no footage.
If it had been a car or motorcycle and the HGV had forced them to brake, to avoid him - the lorry driver would be guilty of driving without due care. As a daily cyclist, I'd have given way - but that doesn't make it right.
@@squicker Sadly you're right, even if I love getting mad at people's lack of anticipation. This is one of the reasons I don't upload dashcam/cyclecam footage. I'm such a defensive driver/rider most of my clips would be 'could have been' situations, so I expect the comments section would be ruthless calling me names and questioning, "What even happened?"
I'd have about two exciting clips in over 10 years of driving where I had to react to avoid trading paint.
@@squicker Correct. That is the main reason I don't watch dashcam compilattion channels. Ashley's are at least educational and created with some effort on his part.
It's great that you stand up for cyclists. I think the truck driver tried to give as much space as possible, but having to wait behind a bike all the way round a roundabout when they have deadlines to meet is a lot to ask.
Deadlines are no excuse for putting someone on danger. The driver (IMO) made a bad mistake but using time constraints as an excuse is absurd - how would you feel if someone you loved was killed or seriously injured and afterwards, the delivery company said "Well, my customer got their delivery on time"?
@@StevieOnHisBike I agree really. But I can be understanding of the pressure, it's certainly not absurd to be sympathetic of that. Personally I assist traffic getting past straight away, but I know you don't have to.
@@StevieOnHisBike Its about probabilities. He has probably overtaken 100 times before like that without the dire consequences you proclaim.
@@ChrisCaaa Yeah, I am sympathetic to the time pressures that some delivery drivers are under (esp. those that have to work for the type of companies who impose strict penalties for late deliveries - possibly why so many of them drive so inconsiderately). Completely agree with you with regards being considerate with other road users - where possible I always allow large vehicles (that may otherwise find it difficult to overtake) to get past. It's possibly a bit sad (on my part) but it never fails to make me smile when a driver thanks me with a friendly toot ☺.
@@alanrobertson9790 My comment wasn't very well written, my intent was to make more of a general point about using time constraints as an mitigating factor for endangering other road users and not, a comment about the HGV driver's actions in this particular incident. The HGV driver in this case got it wrong but I really don't think there was any real intent to bully the cyclist (who should have simply slowed down a squidge; dramatically reduced the probabilities of a crash).
Could the police be getting fed up with cyclists submitting videos of road incidents which have been manufactured to shame drivers?
A lot of divisions are now requesting footage from all road users regarding poor driving. Even while results may not go the way the submitter may want it allows the police to have a clearer idea of issues etc.
You need to try actually cycling before making comments like that
I drive a car, ride a motor bike and cycle and I have the same thoughts, [did they really need to send that to the police?]
some of the idiots on the roads need to have the book thrown at them but the majority of police reported dash cam videos you see are a waste of the police’s time,
Sure someone did something wrong but half the time the camer makes the problem worse through self righteous stubbornness.
@@tonyrobinson7740 Most motorists have been cyclists in their youth and we didn't have 1.5m. Don't make assumptions.
Not from the Police Service local to me. 🙂
The cyclist would be able to have a quicker response time to fix the situation, in my opinion, and what would be more important. To keep momentum, or to remain alive?
To be right, of course😊
0:50 If this had been a practical test at driving school, the lorry driver would have failed, 100 per cent
and? that doesn't automatically mean they committed an offence.
@@adamspencer95 but they did
I think this really ought to be the standard test for inconsiderate/careless driving. If it would have resulted in a driving test major fault, then it's prosecutable. Even a fixed penalty of £100 and 3 points might make them take more care in future, you know, the penalty that might be handed out for doing 56mph on a 50mph dual-carriageway at 2am when nobody else is about.
It seems daft to me that you can put someone at so much risk and easily get away with it, but a marginal speeding offence where nobody was directly put at risk is usually prosecuted. The system needs changing.
The cyclist too tbh, they keep themselves in the danger zone.
@@RenAigu unfortunately, the HGV driving test doesn't include an element of cycling proficiency. I do think that it ought to personally. An HGV driver should be required to log a few hundred miles cycling in heavy rush hour traffic amongst HGVs before being granted a commercial driving licence.
Lots of comments that the cyclist should have slowed, which I’d have done.
But of those saying this, would you all do this in your car? Would you just give way to the poorly timed overtake.
A lot of people driving would not. But we expect the vulnerable road user to just give way
because cyclists are not seen as road users.
TBF to both parties, the lorry Driver shouldn’t have overtaken there. S/He miss judged the space needed for the overtake. Though they did attempt to overtake properly. I’m wondering if they’re in-experienced newly qualified.
However, the cyclist should have stopped pedalling and slowed to accommodate the mistake. The cab was over in the other lane. You can clearly see the attempt to give the appropriate space.
As soon as that lorry started passing I would have slowed and held back.
Then again hills aren't really a problem for me as I ride an electric assisted bike
I was a cyclist, got knocked off my bike at narrow roads a couple of times. This video looks fine to me. If overtaking must only be done when the road layout allows for it to always be completed, articulated lorries would spend their entire time on the road following the slowest cyclists. How many drivers touch the brakes to allow overtakers an easier passage? The cyclist wasn't hurt, or even touched, the least he could do was give the articulated lorry driver a bit of space to navigate a bend in the road. Busses can't always jeep the whole length of the vehicle in their own lane on town roundabouts, most drivers sensibly give them a bit if leeway. Cyclists can too. I did when I was a regular cyclist. Take account of other people's difficulties, there are enough real issues for cyclists to deal with.
We'd agree that the overtake was poor, and the cyclist could of been more flexible to make things safer for him, but it's not like the cyclist sped up, so personally the police's response baffles me a tad.
My first thoughts were slow down! Yes, that was a terrible overtake, but continuing made the situation worse for the cammer. They should have slowed, make it a non event.
It's dash cam disease. They have to create footage and create outrage.
While yes, the lorry shouldn't have overtaken at such a stupid time, there are two things I would have done 2 things very differently:
1. Taken primary just before the roundabout to prevent a risky overtake.
2. If I was overtaken, I would brake and make sure I got *behind* the lorry before it turned. The cyclist sat in the worst possible place, and while they did eventually tuck behind, they stayed to the left until well after the roundabout.
In conclusion, they, like many other road users with a camera, value content over road safety.
P.S. Ashley, I think doing your analysis on a bike makes it seem much more personal, and it prevents stupid comments like "well you would blame the cyclist, you're a mototist".
Great video :)
How long before getting to a roundabout would be a good time to get into primary position?
It looks like the cyclist would have to be in primary at least 20 seconds before reaching the roundabout. And if you have a lorry quite close behind you coming down a hill do you really want to move in front of it?
will you still call the cops on it?
@@adamf7 Great point - I usually would put a "begging signal" to make sure they would let me out - if they backed off I'd take primary, if they instead closed the space down, I'd back off, let them pass and tuck in behind.
As for when to take primary, I typically do around 10-15 seconds before reaching the roundabout (or queue). I find that gives me plenty of time to find my position / lane and also doesn't hold up traffic behind for too long!
@@deDANIEL11609 No, I don't report incidents. Should I? Maybe. Honestly though, for me the best way to improve road safety is with videos like Ashley's.
If I were to report a close pass and they were to receive points for it, I'm sure they would be much more careful in the future. But this may also (wrongly) reinforce their view that all cyclists are "vigilantes". I also don't like the idea of possibly taking away someone's mode of transport or giving a potentially huge fine just because they were impatient.
On the other hand, I don't in any way blame or dislike the idea of other people reporting incidents. If they were in great danger, I don't blame them for wanting some justice.
If it was clear that any road user would be a threat to others' safety (beyond just impatience), then maybe I would report it for the safety of everyone else - some people should never be allowed to drive!
To summarise, I personally don't report incidents, but I have nothing against other people doing so. Ultimately, if the police force allows it, it's not your fault for reporting incidents to them - if it will improve road safety.
@@BeautyByBike the problem is that many motorists do not even think about staying behind any cyclists for longer then 5 seconds. Currently I try to only report criminal offenses, and still it is taking lots of time to do so.
In the cyclist's position there, I'd have been taken the lane - especially if I'd spotted that there was a lorry behind.
A car may have completed the pass before the junction, but a lorry was never going to, and it's wagon was always going to narrow it's nearside space for to the trajectory and the angles involved.
as a motorist, if I am being overtaken, I will often slow to give the overtaking vehicle a bigger safety margin.
Lots of comments saying what the cyclist should have done.
I'll counter that by saying the HGV driver should not have overtaken. It's disappointing the police didn't issue an infringement. It's not good enough.
how much could they charge for bad overtaking?
The police told the cyclist to be more considerate and try to anticipate what may be ahead and that would avoid this happening. If anyone's at fault it's the cyclists.
@@irresistablejewel bullshit
@@deDANIEL11609 Spam spam spam spam... wonderful spam, wonderful spam...
Yes - the HGV driver shouldn't have overtaken, but should the cyclist be charged for not slowing down, and instead accelerating into the dangerous situation? Probably not, as both parties actions were why it was a dangerous situation, if there was nothing the cyclist could have done to avoid the situation from becoming dangerous, then absolutely fine the driver!
*Just to make myself clear, as I feel you'd agree with me if you understand what I'm specifically saying:*
If there was nothing that the cyclist could have done to fix the situation, then charge the driver.
Given that the cyclist "enjoyed" the danger (he spent extra energy specifically to increase risk) I feel neither party should be charged.
The lorry driver should NOT have attempted to overtake knowing full well there was a roundabout ahead. However, adopting defensive riding by slowing could have made this safer, but it shouldn't be down to vulnerable road users to correct the mistakes of the biggest, most dangerous road users.
From the point of view of a regular cyclist (about five 15-mile rides weekly), this looked like what I see on a daily basis and not particularly close; I'd have slowed down, especially when approaching a roundabout.
I think we're slowly turning into a nation of fairies. The lorry driver could have shown better anticipation, but it was clear what he was doing and all the cyclist had to do was slow up and allow the lorry to clear the junction. It's not a big deal.
Definitely, there are a lot of softies out there now.
Why did he need to overtake so close to a roundabout?
Interesting choice of insult. Which meaning are we using here?
1. an imaginary supernatural being, usually represented in diminutive human form and characterized as clever, playful, and having magical powers
2. offensive, slang
a homosexual man
@@5wheels178 I agree it was bad driving, I'm not disputing the core point being made, but at the same time, the cyclist just had to slow up and could have done that immediately without much of an issue. Remember that the cyclist should be anticipating as well and should be aware of everything around him. (I am both a driver and a cyclist - I probably cycle more). I think too much is being made in general of separation distances. It's important, but at the same time, there's a lack of pragmatism and maybe part of this is that I've become cynical and weary of these 'Jeremy Vine' type gotcha scenarios where the cyclist is like: 'Oh my god, 50 cm! You nearly killed me!' It's rarely actually like that and I think too much is being made of it sometimes.
@@Tailspin80 Neither, and I think you're quite possibly a classic example of the type of person I am railing against: the 'Jeremy Vine' type who makes too much of trivial incidents. I am both a cyclist and driver, by the way, and I actually prefer cycling and do that more. I accept the lorry driver was at fault, but don't we need to be pragmatic on the roads and accept imperfections? As I said in the other comment, I am growing cynical and weary of this stuff because there are so many of these videos in which a cyclist exaggerates the issue of separation distance and the risk involved, while also overlooking his own faults (typically poor anticipation skills, as in this very video). Oh wow, the car was only 50 cm. from me! Someone call the police, I'm having a fit! I'm not defending bad driving, but we're all guilty of it from time to time (me included) and The Highway Code does say we should be pragmatic on the roads.
I think your analysis is sound, Ashley, but I feel that the police response was rather slopey-shouldered.
It was a very poor overtake through a traffic island / causing conflict with other road users, which in a more proactive force could be "without due care", and the evidence is there for the closeness to the approximate distance in the regulated white line units. Cyclist could have backed off a little to manage the effect of the overtake.
I don't really buy the stuff about "camera does not give a clear view" etc - it's the copper's job to be able to allow for that if he is on that team, and here there are plenty of cues. Plus it is a professional driver in a Wigan based truck.
I think it would also depend on the wording of the report submitted, though.
The big problem is that this was an opportunity to educate a truck driver *not* to do that, which has now been lost so he will do it again next time. I think rather than NFA it should imo have been a warning letter. I am not clear if this is still an option.
As an aside, both of the barriers you wiggled through on your route are I think plainly unlawful (the first one no drop kerb, the 2nd one less than 1.5m gap), at least under Equality Act 2010 (pedestrian with a mobility aid cannot get through, never mind a tricyclist or hand cyclist), but possibly under "Willful Obstruction of the Public Highway", depending on the status of the route. I never used to notice these until I had my mum in a wheelchair.
IME they're all too quick to NFA on the "benefit of the doubt" rather than sending a polite letter saying "if this happens again it will be a prosecution" - what also bothers me is that while the decision is "black and white" the transparency around what constitutes an offence is very vague - unless you make a complaint and plod is peer reviewed - even then they side with themselves...but it calls them out on the "click a button to avoid work" approach...
The cyclist road position was too close to the kerb. I would be riding in primary position in that situation, especially on approaching a roundabout. This would deter any dangerous overtakes.
2:35 The HGV driver, were they reasonably competent, should not have overtaken any vehicle that close the the roundabout.
what is wrong with that? Nobody will stop him.
You've missed the point of the police response. They said with the evidence at hand, they didn't think they could build a case.
So muscle has to give way to power? That lorry should have waited and had no right to force the cyclist to slow down for his poor driving!
The point here is that the cyclist is by far the most vulnerable road user and it it the lorry driver’s responsibility to take appropriate action. Yes the cyclist was a bit of a dick in not slowing down but they shouldn’t have been put in that position in the first place. The primary cause for concern is the poor performance of the lorry driver.
in the view from a hgv driver you can see past the roundabout that the traffic is stationary so to do this overtake is pointless to the verge of stupidly dangerous as you cant guarantee that the cyclist isn't going to collide with your trailer on turning on the roundabout even if you do cut it like the driver did its simply impatience not wanting to go 7 -8 mph behind the cyclist until you get to a point where you can do your overtake safely
Good point a couple of years back had a lorry overtake top of a fast descent I did have to back off a signal to the driver to get back in. Then we both got stuck at the lights. Then we had a long steep hill . I did meet the lorry coming back down at the top after a 20 minutes climb and did think you didn't gain much time as we've both met at the top and left at the same time granted he's unloaded . I'm pretty sure I would only be 5 mins from where he unloaded
Yes, a terrible overtake by the HGV, but at one point the cyclist can be seen gaining on the lorry at exactly the point where the gap narrows the most. As said in the video, fix other people's mistakes, slow down and make it a non-issue.
As a ex London motorcycle despatch rider of many years I now have an innate sense of self preservation that has served my well on both two and four wheels. Anticipation is key and the rule that presume all other road users are idiots is a must. As for the the lorry overtake I would have slowed right down and not trusted that the lorry was going straight over at the roundabout, he could have turned left without indicating and then the outcome might have been a fatal one.
Just remembered something from my pre driving cycling days. "If you cant see their mirrors, they cant see you" Also helps now i'm a driver.
An issue with HGV drivers/driving is you're encouraged to get to your destination as quickly as possible. In fact I would say your job depends on it. I've been in situations driving HGVs where it's taken longer due to traffic, bad roads, etc. And unfortunately been ridiculed for it.
HGV drivers are actually in a hurry, because their job (and/or peace of mind) depends on it. That's not to excuse bad driving, but understand the world is a reflection of behaviour.
Having been to court, I can see why the police took this stance, there is probably not enough evidence for a court conviction. A good solicitor will cast enough doubt. However the Police can send the NIP and in most cases the driver will do a education course or take the points and fine. If the driver sent back the NIP and wants to challenge it, at that point the Police could decide not to persue based on the evidence. It is a missed educational opportunity for the driver.
That's the problem with reporting video remotely, the police either have to commit to having a prosecution, so need to be very confident they'll win; or just drop it like in this case. If there was a police officer physically observing this incident, they could have pulled over the driver and cyclist and gave them some words of advice, and they both go away without any convictions, but at least some thoughts in their minds to do better next time.
Overtaking that close and right before a roundabout is awful. Cyclist should have slowed, annoying if you're tired, especially when you are always the one forced to yield due to your vulnerable position. We need to take some space away from cars and make our streets safe for everyone. Trying to take my son to school on his bike is awful. Basically we have implemented the death penalty for anyone who crosses the street at the wrong time or encounters the wrong motorist
Saying the cyclist could have stopped... Sure.
SO COULD THE LORRY. When he realised he didn't have room to pass, the lorry driver could have slowed and moved back behind the bike.
Yes, as a cyclist you should be aware and should protect yourself. But that's no excuse for the lorry driver. The lorry driver put his 20 ton multi axle person killer right next to a vulnerable person, and started squeezing him off the road. It's inexcusable. Someone in charge of a deadly machine needs to be making impeccable decisions about where they drive it and who they drive it into.
Why hsould the real traffic get delayed because one biker is in the way? that does not make any sense.
@@deDANIEL11609send your "driving licence" back to Kellogg's.
I personally wouldn't have cared about that "incident" and I'm a bit of a grumpy bastard when it comes to bad passing of bikes.
I probably would have given the brakes a quick tweak around the time the trailer wheels were passing, but not much. A tiny bit of speed loss would have made that all happen without even going close.
Good commentary Ashley. I felt the cyclist was riding very close to the kerb - they appeared to be almost riding over the drain covers. If they had been in primary they might have deterred the overtake?
The police only want to prosecute where the case is unequivocal for one side and where there is proportionality of blame then they haven't got the time or the resources for the CPS and the Courts to do it. Any doubt or mitigation means that the case takes longer and costs more. When we have the resources to prosecute these offences then no doubt they will be.
the truck driver was in the wrong but the cyclist gave no consideration for his own safety or the manoeuvre that the truck was about to do. The phrase 'contributory negligence' is probably appropriate.
The CPS don't get involved with traffic cases unless they are serious or complex, the police still prosecute the vast majority themselves. Cases like this are almost always handled "on the papers" under the single justice procedure so it's basically just paperwork. However, the police still have to meet the same criteria for prosecution that the CPS do before they can proceed to prosecute, namely: (1) that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and (2) that prosecution is in the public interest. Obviously for some offences the police have the option of issuing a fixed penalty notice instead of prosecution.
@@ianmason. However, any prosecution in this case would go to magistrate court and the resources to prosecute those cases is limited.
@@clivewilliams3661 Well that's why the single justice procedure exists. Under the SJP the cases are dealt with by a single magistrate sitting in an office somewhere in the court dealing with the case just on paperwork alone. Each complete case takes little time at all, mere minutes. So a single magistrate can get through hundreds of cases in a day. The resources consumed by a single case can be very small.
@@ianmason. From what I have read it seems that the SJP is more about convenience that justice. A defendant has the right to argue their defence and respond to the plaintiffs arguments. A magistrate dealing with many cases in a short period will undoubtably lead to a confusion of cases and facts getting intermingled between cases in the mind of the magistrate. It is not fair. It can only be used if the defendant pleads guilty or has not responded to a notice of prosecution. It is that last point that is worrying in that a SJP judgement can be given without the defendant being aware and being able to defend himself. If a defendant has to attend court to be prosecuted then you can bet that more effort is applied than would be necessary in the SJP procedure.
However, quite apart from the reduced court time there is still the considerable time taken to process the information to present to the Court and the action thereafter.
On this occasion I agree with the police stance (bearing in mind we only have the cyclist footage). The lorry appeared to give the cyclist plenty of room, but the cyclist made no allowance to the lorry driver and in fact seemed to be trying to "get down the side of the lorry" at the roundabout. His attempt to report the incident only makes him look ignorant to his own created danger.
The cyclist road position was inviting vehicles to pass him. He should have been in a primary position to avoid situations like this. Ride your own ride, drivers can safely pass you when the other road lane is clear to do so.
That clearly falls below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver. The Highway Code says DO NOT overtake approaching a junction or where you will force another road user to swerve or slow down. It also says to only overtake where it is safe to do so and leave plenty of room (at least 1.5 metres for cyclists). Driving a 50-ton killing machine requires a lot more care than that.
The cyclist wasn’t riding properly either but that is a separate matter and does not negate the driver’s negligence. I think it’s worth filing a complaint about the police - I did so once and they did say that on review they thought an offence had been committed.
As a driver I can’t excuse anything that lorry driver did. Impatient and dangerous overtake. The police should have taken action.
You don't mention anything about what the cyclist had to say about this incident in this video. But I'm assuming if they reported it, then they saw it as dangerous at the time, so why didn't they do anything to keep themselves safe?
I've heard in the past, “I will never get anywhere if I have to keep slowing down”. You’ll also never get anywhere if you are lying in a hospital bed or walking around on crutches.
I 100% agree with you. Yes, the overtake was terrible, but it could easily have been a non-event. A classic case of stubbornness increasing risk massively, where there didn't need to be any risk.
The overtake was worse than terrible. The truck didn't have time to complete the overtake before the roundabout. It's all very well suggesting the cyclist slow down but would we expect the same from a moterist? I don't think so.
@@apkk5594 actually, yes, we would expect a motorist to slow down if necessary. Read rule 168 of the HC. Spells it out there for you.
@@ArminGrewe well done for missing my point. Given no truck, and reasonable diligence, the cyclist would not have needed to slow down for the roundabout.
@@apkk5594as a motorcyclist the first thing I would do if overtaken badly like this is slow down and drop back. Defensive riding always. Why would you continue forward.closing the gap even more. I value my safety much more than losing a few seconds on a roundabout.
@@apkk5594 Yes; the rule is keep away from everything bigger. It is alright to say 'I have right of way' but that doesn't help when you are laying in hospital or worse.
Lorry driver should have remained behind the cyclist. I’m confused as to why the threshold wasn’t me. “Almost passed” is not “passed”. A warning letter for the driver would have been fair.
However, the explanation seemed thorough and the letter polite
in germany they could even charge you 30 € if you pass with less then 1,5m. But they never do it.
I doubt it's the case with this particular video - but something to consider:- might there be junctions where the presence of the lorry (and it's drivers elevated viewpoint) might have allowed the cyclist to carry more speed into the roundabout and thus the lorry to fail to complete it's overtake? Where if the lorry had not overtaken then the cyclist would have had to slow more to ensure there were no vehicles already on the roundabout, to give way to. Such that if the lorry doesn't overtake then there's enough space to overtake, but if they do start their overtake then there isn't.....
Cyclist had just been on a long stretch of road with cars on the other side meaning no chances to pass. Instead of understanding this and thinking maybe I can let this guy past me now he's been waiting and there's a big gap and opportunity, the cyclist chooses to maintain speed, and not slow for the roundabout to catch the lorry then enter the roundabout unsighted, using the lorry's position to enable his safe progress over it.
There is not enough evidence how long the truck was following in this video
Yeah, thank god lorry drivers don't behave selfishly on motorways when overtaking another truck ¼mph faster fir 5 minutes. They always always slow and wait in those circumstances, don't they just.
@@abt833That is true, but should it make any difference? I suggest not.
If the truck was following for some distance one might reasonably expect the cyclist to help out by creating a safe opportunity.
im a hgv driver, this is my guess, with the tag axle down the hgv would in all likely hood be loaded, take time to get 44 ton moving, the speed he passed at suggests to me he came up on the cyclist, saw a gap and just kept his speed going, i dont think he was sat behind.
@@grahambonner508 The video doesn't show how long the truck was following. Yes I would have stopped at a sensible spot but that is not for the truck to force
I would argue that this situation does meet the minimum threshold to pursue offenses assuming that motorists are required to leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists.
given it's an advisory rule in the HC, prosecution is only possible when it clearly meets the threshold for careless/dangerous driving.
The lorry did give 1.5 metres. It was the cyclist subsequently riding into the space the lorry pulled into that was the issue.
@@paulsengupta971 "riding into the space the lorry pulled into" sounds like a lorry running someone off the road. It was a poor overtake. I agree the cyclist could have slowed down more for their safety, but they would have had to slow down a lot in this situation and no one should have to slam on their breaks to let someone complete their pass.
@@ChrisWachtman Yes, it was a poor overtake, but as soon as the cyclist knew that the lorry was overtaking, they didn't have to "slam on the brakes", they could just have eased off and started slowing down for the roundabout, as any road user would. They didn't, they carried on pedalling hell for leather, just to actually make an issue of it, putting their life in danger in the process. From the video, it was even up-hill there. The lorry, having started the overtake, kept the power on as long as they could, trying to get past before they knew they would have to pull in for the roundabout. To quote someone else in the thread:
Page 42 of a current version highway code, the paragraph for general advice, "if it will help to avoid an incident, give way".
If your explanation is correct, I think the police should have been honest i.e. say it was a bad overtake but not the worst and they have to prioritise other cases.
Unrelated but I couldn’t help notice the positioning of your brake levers. If you turn them down so your wrists don’t bend upwards you may find your ride a lot more comfortable. Especially given how much you seem to hold them.
Awful driving, police don't act as the are completely down with motonormativity. Cyclist didn't help himself much but that should not detract from the shocking driving.
The driving wasn't that bad. They gave the cyclist plenty of room and had the cyclist allowed them to complete the overtake it would have been a non-event. Any time you're being overtaken, whether you're in a car or on a bike, back off and let the vehicle overtake safely. Increase the safety margins for that vehicle and for yourself. The cyclist did the exact opposite.
Ashley's diets working very well 👌
Before you analyse the footage, my opinion is that the hgv didn't have enough extra space for the overtake to cater for the cyclist speeding up on the downhill section before the roundabout. The feeling from the way the hgv was driven, it looks like a genuine human error. I would give them a B. The cyclist, while they were riggt-of-way vehicle, could have done more to help the flow by identifying they were both approaching the same space at the same time. They then cycle on into greater danger as they approach the roundabout and do nothing to fix the issue so I think a C for them. Both vehicles require more effort to get back up to speed and might have their attention on that too much
With the benefit of watching it a few times, the distance does feel a bit short. Maybe there might be some benefit to sending the video or screen capture of the closest part of the incident to the registered keeper but informing them that, on this occasion, there will be no further action. Might encourage the company owning the vehicle to do some additional driver training.
Any copper reviewing videos like this should be made to ride a bike a minimum of 4 weeks/400 miles around his local area; the close proximity of a 16-wheeler's wheelnuts to his elbow might just adjust his perspective a tad.
The cyclist needs to grow up. Kids... don't shop yourself to the police! (let them figure it out)
If i were the cyclist I'd have backed off when I realised the lorry was going to get too close. The lorry driver was in the wrong for trying to overtake too close to the roundabout.
Ashley, speaking of "impeccable riding" my feeling was that you should have dismounted and pushed your bike through that chicane rather than riding up and down the kerb. Which I think proves your point, yes?