Best way to identify a cyclist

ThorOdinson

I'm just appalled by how many people are making excuses for a clearly dangerous cyclist. The guy has caused a serious injury and is still out there, on his phone, not paying attention.

It's just luck that I was able to track him down. It was just money in my case, but he's really hurt this poor woman.

Herzlos

I don't think anyone has made any excuses for the dangerous cyclist, he was caught and punished. We're just trying to bring some perspective into it, and countering the anti-cyclist bias that's pervasive to the internet.

If you were rear ended by a driver paying as little attention as that cyclist was, what do you think would have happened?

BikingBud

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

Veteransaver said:

Herzlos said:

I actually saw a cyclist on his phone today. To be fair he was maybe about 12, going at walking speed and on an empty pavement with a barrier between it and the road. 

For perspective; on the same journey however I spotted 2 drivers using phones whilst driving, and 6 cars jumping red lights.

It's heartening to see this anti cyclist thread is now well into its 2nd month all because someone suffered a bit of minor cosmetic damage to their car.
Today I was cycling back from the local shop, a man was attempting to cross at the zebra crossing. I stopped for him to cross, the 2 cars behind me just sailed on through (overtaking me on the zigzags too). Unbelievable and could have ended in utter carnage for both me and the pedestrian.

The same crossing a few years ago I was trying to cross with my kids, the car approaching slowed to stop, I was just about to cross when I noticed a van following that proceeded to ram into the back of the stopped car, shunting him right across the crossing where (had I not been ultra aware) we would have been mown down.

Yes, cyclists are definitely the major problem on our roads. /s

I've seen this happen and it's often because the cyclist is blocking the clear view of the crossing. Drivers should slow down if they can't see clearly, but many don't.

That's why I say it would be better for cyclists to use the middle of the lane. Then if they stop to let someone cross it's clear they are dismounting or whatever, they are part of the flow of traffic.

It's not just about who is right and who is wrong, it's about making everyone safer.

@ThorOdinson

Time for drivers to hand in their licences?

I have held off asking this as I have gone through this thread but what did you do immediately before you slowed down in front of the cyclist, some have said you were already stopped but I couldn't find that.

I ask because the number of time drivers have overtaken me with a must get in front attitude, the very same attitude that you observed where drivers overtake cyclists without knowing what is in front, endangering all road users (pedestrians are included within that set) is too numerous to remember.

The one bit I very clearly remember is the fact that often the drivers then brake suddenly because they meet an obstacle that they had not observed despite clear visibility and no driving plan in how to deal with it. I had very few options due to the drivers aggressive and impatient attitude and frequently came close to rear ending them.

When you subsequently tap on their window as you stop at the same traffic light, not 10 seconds later they reman oblivious. 

Were you oblivious to your actions immediately before the incident? 

Perhaps you can share your driving expertise and sage assessment of the occurrence so we can all learn and avoid, to improve road safety for all of course!

I passed him earlier, giving plenty of room. He was talking on his phone at the time, so I made sure to leave extra space in case he did something stupid. Indicated and pulled around him, as the car in front did moments before.

I stopped about 20 seconds before he hit me. Plenty of space for him to see me. He was looking at his phone. He was oblivious to his surroundings, as is sadly all too common for cyclists. 

They seem to have get-ahead-itis too. Weaving in and out of traffic, into the pavement. 

I've got a better dashcam now so I can record them more easily, but it's always the identification that is the problem. There is now a Facebook group dedicated to figuring out who they are in my city, so they can be reported to the police/insurance.

So he caught up to you within 20 secs, why did you feel it necessary to pass him for 20 seconds of road that was already occupied by the other car that had overtaken? Sadly it's all too common for drivers!

Why did you go in front of him if you knew he was on the phone and would be inattentive?

You are putting yourself into the collision zone. You did not take appropriate action to avoid the collision, it seems by overtaking unecessarily you increased the likelihood of an incident.

Any further thoughts on why you said riding on the pavement was ok!

Riding on the pavement up to say 10 KPH is fine too, it's the ones who zoom along that are the problem.

You cannot pick and choose the laws and make up your own interpretation any more than speeders can say it's not important it was only 75/85/105 mph.

Record them because it is always them? Yet when the longer section of dash cam footage is observed the innocent drivers are often seen to be the instigators. In the same manner that anti-speed campaigns that are set up to address villagers' concerns seem to pick up habitually speeding villagers. Bizarre really.

Your language remains very blamey of the cyclist and you are quite clearly not whiter than white, I would suggest reality is somewhere different.

You are hopelessly confused now. Do you understand how traffic lights work? How reacting to what other drivers do works? Do you have any idea how far a vehicle travels at 30 MPH in 20n seconds?

I don't need your opinion. He was too blame. Now he has seriously injured a woman too. The man is a menace, and your attitude suggests that you probably are as well.

I am only confused because you are backtracking so much.

So you were doing the speed limit on the road - 30 mph or were you on a road with a higher speed limit and were only able to get to 30 mph because it was busy?

If you overtook him to gain 20s whether that equates to approximately 290 yards @30 mph, which it does, or approximately 685 yards @70mph, again it does, the fact remains that you over took somebody on a bike to get there 20 seconds earlier than them - Really!

But lets look at it realistically and in a busy area where you had to assess, decide, indicate, over take and pull in your average speed might have been closer to 15-18 mph and the distance until you stopped might be closer to 150 yards - well worth the overtake?

The difficulty you also have is that you are measuring distance rather than time, 20s is 20s whatever speed you are travelling. The distance between two cars occupying 2 adjacent lanes on the motorway may be 75 yard but the time gap is infinite as they are travelling at the same speed. In the same vein it takes 5 miles for one lorry to pass another when they are both sat on the speed limiters.

Anyway, you need time to observe, plan and execute manoeuvres safely on the road

During that observation period, before the very important 20s that you gained by overtaking started, because you were such an excellent, observant, forward thinking and considerate driver, you would have seen the traffic lights in the distance, let's say 200 yards. - Fair?

And let's also make an assessment that you know the area because you call it "my city", that you knew there was likely to be a queue at the lights ahead that required you to stop - Fair?

Yet you still overtook knowing full well:

• that there were hazards (traffic lights) ahead
• and that there was likely a need to stop at that hazard
• and during that stop the cyclist that you have just overtaken, because he was a hazard, will now be behind you and he is still a hazard
• and as he is now behind you and inattentive as he is using his phone you have placed yourself at increased risk
• and that risk came to fruition
• and he collided with your car
• something that was foreseeable
• and something that was extremely unlikely if you had remained behind him?

Is that less confusing for you?

As I said in an earlier post 25 August at 9:11PM drivers overtake because they must get in front. You appear to be a prime candidate for all those traits, although I concede I did suggest 10s and you appear to have achieved double that but with a great deal of avoidable stress and aggravation.  

Seems well worth gaining 20 seconds for? - Sadly it's all too common for drivers!

Because of one rider you appear to be agitated about all cyclists but have little capacity to consider what you might have done differently to prevent the situation - perhaps you should be more honest with yourself. Perhaps consider some training, IAM or ROSPA, to increase your observation, awareness, hazard assessment and planning.

Sit back and chill. 

BTW Traffic lIght sequence:

• Red
• Red/Amber
• Green
• Amber
• Red

All bar Green mean stop and Green means proceed if clear.

You are confused because you haven't understood what you are being told. You are making wild assumptions that have no basis in anything anyone said.

If people don't understand what they "are being told" then perhaps it is the manner or the tone in which the message is conveyed.

But please do clarify. Where does my logic trail fall down?

You said there were lights.
You said you were following a cyclist who was on his phone.
You said you overtook the cyclist.
You said he hit you 20s later.

There are facts and elements that need to be interpolated and based upon some assumptions the full chain of events can be analysed. 

I used what you stated as facts

I asked you if the assumptions were fair if not then please advise?

So perhaps it is my assessment of your risk appreciation, please tell.

I am definitely not confused about; speed/distance/time calculations, the perils of cycling, motorcycling and driving on our roads and trying to pre-empt what others might do.

 And I am certainly not confused about how traffic lights work.

The only confusing thing is your smoke screen and persistent attitude that allows you to consider that one poor cyclist defines all cyclists and the complete lack of any self awareness.

BikingBud

ThorOdinson said:

I'm just appalled by how many people are making excuses for a clearly dangerous cyclist. The guy has caused a serious injury and is still out there, on his phone, not paying attention.

It's just luck that I was able to track him down. It was just money in my case, but he's really hurt this poor woman.

If you have too much time and anger about road safety perhaps you could go through these stats and see where the true risk to the public's safety lies:
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/road-safety

You could then funnel that anger to a worthy cause and address all the hazards.

ThorOdinson

Herzlos said:

I don't think anyone has made any excuses for the dangerous cyclist, he was caught and punished. We're just trying to bring some perspective into it, and countering the anti-cyclist bias that's pervasive to the internet.

If you were rear ended by a driver paying as little attention as that cyclist was, what do you think would have happened?

Well that's the point - he was only caught because I went to extraordinary lengths and got lucky that he's one of those terminally online people. 

Even so it's not clear if he is going face any punishment this time, and I'm sure he will get back on his bike and probably crash it into someone else.

If I was rear ended by a driver on their phone the number plate would have identified them and the police would have prosecuted their phone use.

bouicca21

ThorOdinson 

If I was rear ended by a driver on their phone the number plate would have identified them and the police would have prosecuted their phone use.

That of course rests on the assumption that the plate can actually be connected to a person through tax/insurance records (the UK has a high rate of failure to do either), that the car isn’t stolen and that the plates haven’t been cloned.  It also assumes that the police would be interested.  A year or so ago I and another person were witnesses to an accident.  Open and shut case of careless possibly dangerous driving.  Extraordinarily lucky that no there was no serious injury.  Waited an hour for the police to turn up and give our statements, only for them to tell the two drivers to sort it out themselves.

silverwhistle

BikingBud said:

The only confusing thing is your smoke screen and persistent attitude that allows you to consider that one poor cyclist defines all cyclists and the complete lack of any self awareness.

Thank you BB for saving me so much typing..

I notice he never replies to your specific points on procedure and timing, and the assumptions throughout are amazing - "probably crash it into someone else".

They really are using a hammer to rack a nut, and they're certainly no Loki Silvertongue..

Herzlos

Somewhere around 4% of drivers are thought to be uninsured, but they cause a larger than expected percentage of accidents. I don't think there's figures for cars with bad plates, unregistered addresses etc. 

As SW pointed out, being rear ended by an inattentive driver doesn't mean you'll catch them or get a resolution. 

You also managed to dodge my point about what will happen if rear ended by a car who's been driven by someone on a phone. I'd be pretty confident the damage would be more than a wiper mechanism. The cyclists damage was likely less than your insurance excesss and certainly less than your insurance premium hikes than if it had been a driver.  That's before you factor in stuff like whiplash and orders of magnitude more damage. 

It seems like you've got quite an axe to grind about cyclists in general though.

BikingBud

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

I don't think anyone has made any excuses for the dangerous cyclist, he was caught and punished. We're just trying to bring some perspective into it, and countering the anti-cyclist bias that's pervasive to the internet.

If you were rear ended by a driver paying as little attention as that cyclist was, what do you think would have happened?

Well that's the point - he was only caught because I went to extraordinary lengths and got lucky that he's one of those terminally online people. 

Even so it's not clear if he is going face any punishment this time, and I'm sure he will get back on his bike and probably crash it into someone else.

If I was rear ended by a driver on their phone the number plate would have identified them and the police would have prosecuted their phone use.

Good of you to post a video of your normal level of engagement with cyclists.

https://youtu.be/Bvu32oXCT4k

ThorOdinson

bouicca21 said:

ThorOdinson 

If I was rear ended by a driver on their phone the number plate would have identified them and the police would have prosecuted their phone use.

That of course rests on the assumption that the plate can actually be connected to a person through tax/insurance records (the UK has a high rate of failure to do either), that the car isn’t stolen and that the plates haven’t been cloned.  It also assumes that the police would be interested.  A year or so ago I and another person were witnesses to an accident.  Open and shut case of careless possibly dangerous driving.  Extraordinarily lucky that no there was no serious injury.  Waited an hour for the police to turn up and give our statements, only for them to tell the two drivers to sort it out themselves.

There is MIB for untraceable drivers. It's not that common though. The police will take an interest if there is evidence like video.

I think that's why this guy folded once I tracked him down. Video of his crime.