Please report dangerous drivers to the police - Roadsafe. Report to plod, not just whinge here.

Bikeradar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

...oh... wait...

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Confused.com "rage map" states Elephant and castle is* Most dangerous junction in London according to collision stats*

http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/cycle-safety-map

interesting read http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/insurance-website-inflames-motorist-vs-cyclist-debate-32484

Very. I used to work with with Confused.com and the experience made me very glad I did not have to work there.

They are owned by the Admiral insurance group which owns quite a fair number of the heavily marketed insurance companies. Here's the complete list of their companies to boycott.

http://www.admiralgroup.co.uk/corporate/our_companies.php

Thanks for posting that bethandr. Interesting reading. I've often felt that way about cycle lanes and absolutely hate cycle lanes which share the carriageway with other vehicles. I think they are a massive mistake in road planning. They create the perception that cyclists belong exclusively in demarked areas and are wrong to cycle more defensively. They also promote a misguided sense of safety amoung certain riders. They also promote undertaking of both dangerous vehicles and other riders.

I also concur that on occasion it is safer to 'pre-empt' a light and move off before an HGV has the opportunity to place you under undue pressure. This is how I personally approach it and I'm sure I'm overdue a fine for doing it.

Funny, I was riding over Tower Bridge today* and tried to overtake a vehicle but he would not move over to the left at all pushing me to the wrong side of the road. Cue hand gesticulations and muted swearing both ways as I eventually pass him. I manged to talk to him as we were both still moving. "How am I meant to know where you're going? You all over-take on the left and the right. I don't know."

It ended well but he's spot on, there's no universal understanding from cyclists of road craft. That and the infastructure sucking you to the left means this confusion/ignorance will continue ad infinitum.

:(

• Arguably I shouldn't be overtaking there due to the low speed limit.
  

interesting read http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/insurance-website-inflames-motorist-vs-cyclist-debate-32484

just in case no one reads the link this is the sole response posted there:

warning: it makes for grim reading

            **[BikingBernie](http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=484206)**

Doubtless some cyclists do get angry when careless, irresponsible and aggressive motorists put their lives at risk. However, when it comes to so-called 'road rage' it is motorists who are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and cyclists the victims. What's more the courts are notoriously lenient when it come sot delaying with motorists who attack or deliberately run down cyclists. Consider the case a few years back of Carl Baxter, who deliberately drove over a cyclist called Stephen Kirwin and his six-year-old daughter, Emily, who was in a trailer. The cyclist was seriously injured, whilst the girl was in coma for six days and left with brain damage. The driver was sentenced to a paltry 2 years (i.e. less than 12 months) and astonishingly given only a 2 year driving ban.

In another case another motorist called Andrew Hart came up behind a 62-year-old cyclist called Alan Scott whilst driving his'4x4' down a narrow lane. The cyclist pulled over and stopped at the side of the road to let the driver past. The drive then stopped, went back to the cyclist and attacked him for 'getting in his way', leaving him with a broken shoulder. This injury caused a blood clot and as a consequence the cyclist died a few days later. Another driver who witnessed the attack said that the cyclist was 'slightly built' and had done nothing to provoke the attack. Hart was found guilty of manslaughter but incredibly the judge gave Hart only a 9 month suspended sentence. That is, effectively no penalty at all.

Unfortunately, such cases are far from exceptional. They also stand in stark contrast to the cases one reads about where cyclists have been violently arrested by the police after shouting at drivers who have put their lives at risk.

Everyone take extra care tomorrow. James Whale on LBC whipped all motorists up into a total frenzy of hatred against cyclists this evening. Also, the next presenter mentioned that his car window was smashed by a cyclist recently. Also, even while driving this week, I have experienced cars pulling out on me as if I was on the bike. This is a new departure..

The greatest con the motor lobby group ever pulled was making people think cyclists are the source of danger on the roads.

Everyone take extra care tomorrow. James Whale on LBC whipped all motorists up into a total frenzy of hatred against cyclists this evening. Also, the next presenter mentioned that his car window was smashed by a cyclist recently. Also, even while driving this week, I have experienced cars pulling out on me as if I was on the bike. This is a new departure..

Horrible horrible station.

for reasons im not particularly proud of, i tend to have LBC on in the kitchen of an evening. they are masters at drawing attention to the underlying misery of their audience which in turn keeps their attention long enough to force feed them crap adverts. it's still somewhat worth it if you listen to it for comedy value.

So what did this idiot say? The reason for my curiosity will be clear if you go to "private"...

just in case no one reads the link this is the sole response posted there:

warning: it makes for grim reading

BikingBernie

Doubtless some cyclists do get angry when careless, irresponsible and aggressive motorists put their lives at risk. However, when it comes to so-called 'road rage' it is motorists who are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and cyclists the victims. What's more the courts are notoriously lenient when it come sot delaying with motorists who attack or deliberately run down cyclists. Consider the case a few years back of Carl Baxter, who deliberately drove over a cyclist called Stephen Kirwin and his six-year-old daughter, Emily, who was in a trailer. The cyclist was seriously injured, whilst the girl was in coma for six days and left with brain damage. The driver was sentenced to a paltry 2 years (i.e. less than 12 months) and astonishingly given only a 2 year driving ban.

In another case another motorist called Andrew Hart came up behind a 62-year-old cyclist called Alan Scott whilst driving his'4x4' down a narrow lane. The cyclist pulled over and stopped at the side of the road to let the driver past. The drive then stopped, went back to the cyclist and attacked him for 'getting in his way', leaving him with a broken shoulder. This injury caused a blood clot and as a consequence the cyclist died a few days later. Another driver who witnessed the attack said that the cyclist was 'slightly built' and had done nothing to provoke the attack. Hart was found guilty of manslaughter but incredibly the judge gave Hart only a 9 month suspended sentence. That is, effectively no penalty at all.

Unfortunately, such cases are far from exceptional. They also stand in stark contrast to the cases one reads about where cyclists have been violently arrested by the police after shouting at drivers who have put their lives at risk.

I'm not sure if this has been covered elsewhere on here, but The Ministry of Justice announced in October that it is planning to introduce a new offence of 'causing serious injury by dangerous driving’ as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. The offence would carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison and is aimed at toughening up on those who cause serious injuries. http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-releases/moj/moj-newsrelease071011a.htm

Good news in the main, but obviously very very few people get the max, and since half of any prison sentence is served in jail, it still may not feel like dangerous drivers get sentences in proportion to the injuries they cause.

Nobody will ever get convicted of such a law, because you need to prove that the driving met the legal definition of 'dangerous,' and you hardly ever can.

I'd rather all offences of causing injury or death by careless or dangerous driving were removed from the statute books, and instead were dealt with as straight cases of assault/gbh/manslaughter/murder etc.

I had some wanker in a BMW 7 series minicab this morning. lights go green. There had been a pedestrian injured - by whom or what I don't know - and the traffic was stationary. But the guy in the BMW took umbrage at the van in front not proceeding on the green, so proceeded to pull out (by now the lights were red again) drive in to the back of my bike and blast his horn. Needless to say I wasn't the only one telling him to go fuck himself.

Nothing but admiration for you people in the smoke living on your wits on a daily basis. James Whale? Damn, haven't heard that weasily name for donkeys years, hoped he might not be around anymore, I used to hate him for his tabloid confrontational style, what a wazzock [northern term]. Stay safe all of you.

157 people got sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving in 2010, so I think people would get convicted, but probably not enough...

the Superhighway is a very popular parking spot in Tooting.

Still it mean motorists are more patient with me when there's cars on the bike lane and I'm on the primary position with no way of them overtaking.

So popular I didn't even realise there was a superhighweay there. You can never see it when I fly through for work...

Does anyone know what happened around Oval last night? Police everywhere and part of the road was blocked.

Anyway I'm in stationary traffic in the middle of the lane when a car comes quite close to my back wheel. I move forward and ask him not to come so close and he half hangs himself out of the window and starts shouting all sorts of abuse. Tut, tut I think. The best part was when he screamed "Watch where you're going!". errrr I was stationary...

Anwyay once I got through Oval, it was almost traffic free to Souths drinks. Nice!

Had a fucking scary one tonight on my way to SE beers.

Was halfway across southwark bridge heading southbound and riding in the main traffic lane (rain + nodders + slippy cs7 paint + high kerbs = no thankyou), not a single car behind me thanks to the lovely light phasing at the top for the cycle cut through from cannon street when a car coming the opposite direction (northbound) actually pulls out of his lane into mine so he's driving on the wrong side of the road and tries to squeeze me to the side which leaves me stuck with absolutely nowhere to go (high kerb of the segregated lane to my left, him fast approaching to my right) so I scrub off as much speed as possible and pretty much hug the divider to try and get away from him as much as possible getting ready to bail out over the barrier if it looks like there's going to be a collision.

thankfully he passed without hitting me but he was as close as a taxi might pass you sharing a bus lane in heavy traffic and I'd hazard doing at least 30mph.

I was so pre-occupied with not getting hit and thinking WTF is this guy doing that I couldn't tell you the model/color/license plate of the car so no chance of getting anything done about it but trying to reason it all out in my head I can only come up with two scenarios as to why he'd be driving on the wrong side of the road over a fucking BRIDGE in the centre of London

the first that he's a fuckwit of the highest order and thought it was one-way across the bridge but that theory doesn't hold water as he pulled over despite there being no traffic whatsoever in either direction so it's not like he was trying to overtake/avoid anything and there was a fucking cyclist with a bright flashing light in front heading towards him! which leads me to believe that this was in fact probably done on purpose which to be honest is even more fucking scary regardless of if it was some psychopath or bored teenagers 'avin a larf'.

"...You all over-take on the left and the right. I don't know."

Lots of car-drivers do mention 'overtaking' on the left, although it's not really overtaking - it's filtering and it's completely legal. There is only one type of overtake and that's (in the UK) on the right. But it does illustrate the point that lots of London's roads aren't working for the traffic that is using it. Boris is doing next to nothing about this.

Absolutely agree with the comments above though; the vitriol shown against cyclists is absolutely disproportionate to the risk.

They might be generalising- a very common (and very annoying) manouever to pull when approaching a junction (talking about cars here) is for the driver to go hard left into what was the bus lane (they tend to end ~100 metres before the junction), foot hard down, up to the lights, then bully their way back into the "main" lane when the bus lane starts again after the junction.

Doing this they "overtake" a large queue of cars, but on the left hand side.

Dammit - that is the best use of available road space and it is bad driving NOT to use that empty lane.
When the lights change driving nodders are usually pretty slow on the uptake so big gaps open up between them.
So it is far more efficient to have two lanes before the lights which merge into one after the lights.
You get WAY more cars through each light-cycle that way.

It's not "bullying" back into the main lane, it's called merging.

Why do you think they end the bus lane????

I disagree, going into the left lane should be something that cars who are going to turn left do, not thrusty little cunts who want to steal a march on everyone else.

It actually slows the "main" lane as people have to slow to allow Gareth Meatsabre in his Audi to pull in, which he normally does by chopping the indicator on and pulling hard right, daring the traffic to hit him.

it's not designed to allow them to go faster than the rest of traffic and it's not there to let them get the jump on the traffic on the right hand side it's to allow more traffic to get through each light phase and prevent traffic tailing back to the junction behind as quickly as if they were queuing single file.

drivers are still expected to drive at in a safe manner at a sensible speed and to 'merge' safely with traffic when the lanes ahead join again.

My experience when I've been riding in secondary position in a bus lane to avoid the drains is I usually encounter people who use that lane by flooring it, crossing the solid white line before the bus lane ends fully, passing too close to me and then cutting me up to pull across my front wheel so they can hug the kerb and make sure I can't get past to the asl to stop me from delaying their inevitable foot to the floor acceleration to race the other cars off the lights and gain themselves a whopping 30/40 yards on the other cars travelling along that road by moving a few spaces ahead.

Bus lanes generally (but not always) have to end before junctions for a number of reasons, including the nature of carriageway markings. Lanes are multiplied at junctions to increase motor traffic capacity, which is generally a bad thing (more motor traffic, less cycling and walking, more congestion, worse air, more noise and all the usual reasons). Left-turn only lanes are generally not advisable, as they tend to increase the number of left hooks on cyclists who want to stay close to the kerb and get overtaken by drivers turning left. Left-turn-and-ahead lanes are vastly preferable.

Dammit repped. Using the left turning lane to undertake a row of traffic is a dick move. It pissed me off even when I was a driver. It doesn't get more vehicles through each light phase because it results in a merge point in the middle of the intersection as the undertaking cunts try to get back in line before the row of parked cars / single lane bridge that caused the bottleneck in the first place!

Witness the clusterfuck of southbound battersea bridge at rush hour..