This makes me angry... solid white lines

tjwood

http://www.24dash.com/news/communities/ ... le-inquest

http://road.cc/content/news/21110-coron ... accidental

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -A338.html

Not the actions of the higway authority, which have been blamed in some of the press coverage, but the actions of the driver and the fact that he doesn't seem to have been aportioned any of the blame.

[The lorry driver] said that the sudden swerve of the cyclist must have been because of the pothole as there was no other reason he could see and it was too much of a coincidence.

In evidence to the inquest he agreed the pothole was fairly obvious.
...
He told the inquest he believed he had given Mr Allen plenty of room because he said he had moved over the double white lines.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070314

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070306

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

I would be very surprised if he was travelling 10 mph or less on that stretch of road. I find drivers often overtake me in a similar fashion when doing about 20mph on roads with solid white lines. Why aren't drivers aware of the law, and why isn't it enforced?

gaz545

Even with video evidence, aggressive behaviour and a near collision because of a driver going over double white lines, the police did nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlJNodCgKM

flateric

You imply it was the lorry drivers fault in some way? it may be but that has not as yet been proven, it also sounds as if the cyclist swerved pretty suddenly into the path of the truck, already commited to an overtake.

Sounding very much like a tragic accident

jimmypippa

flateric wrote:

You imply it was the lorry drivers fault in some way? it may be but that has not as yet been proven, it also sounds as if the cyclist swerved pretty suddenly into the path of the truck, already commited to an overtake.

Sounding very much like a tragic accident

But this is the bit that was wrong.

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

These together mean that you must not overtake cyclists doing more than 10mph where the line nearest you is solid.

tjwood

jimmypippa wrote:

These together mean that you must not overtake cyclists doing more than 10mph where the line nearest you is solid.

If you're being really picky, you can legally overtake, provided you don't cross the solid line to do so. But that's very unlikely to be possible on a road where there are these lines in the first place.

Of course I don't know the full particulars of this case and we have to assume the coroner made the right decision. It just served to highlight a problem I have experienced on numerous occasions - drivers seem to be unaware or deliberately ignore the law in respect of solid white lines.

Bassjunkieuk

tjwood wrote:

jimmypippa wrote:

These together mean that you must not overtake cyclists doing more than 10mph where the line nearest you is solid.

If you're being really picky, you can legally overtake, provided you don't cross the solid line to do so. But that's very unlikely to be possible on a road where there are these lines in the first place.

Of course I don't know the full particulars of this case and we have to assume the coroner made the right decision. It just served to highlight a problem I have experienced on numerous occasions - drivers seem to be unaware or deliberately ignore the law in respect of solid white lines.

I've seen plenty of drivers ignoring the solid white lines in Croydon. One particular stretch is Addiscombe Road (sorry to bore those not from the area.....) which has trams running in both directions. There are 2 tram stops on opposite sides of the road, offset slightly due to housing, that have solid white lines down the edge to try to stop people overtaking the tram when it stops. On many occasions I've seen people just swerve out round the tram and carry on down the road. This is despite the fact that they could come face to face with a tram or bus (my wife had this happen once when a bus overtook the tram, ignoring the solid lines)

At the end of the day there are impatient drivers out there (such as the one in Gaz's video, I wouldn't even attempt an overtook on that bridge regardless of the central line) who don't seem to care about anyone safety and drive like idiots.

rmhodv

gaz545 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlJNodCgKM

I reckonise that stretch of road, it it the bridge going from Elmers End towards Lower Addiscombe? If it is then very dangerous. Very narrow.

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

At the end of the day there are impatient drivers out there (such as the one in Gaz's video, I wouldn't even attempt an overtook on that bridge regardless of the central line) who don't seem to care about anyone safety and drive like idiots.

Why are so many people impatient? On the video if he'd just waited a few minutes he'd passed quite safely.

asprilla

It's not even minutes, it's seconds.

Bassjunkieuk

rmhodv wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlJNodCgKM

I reckonise that stretch of road, it it the bridge going from Elmers End towards Lower Addiscombe? If it is then very dangerous. Very narrow.

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

At the end of the day there are impatient drivers out there (such as the one in Gaz's video, I wouldn't even attempt an overtook on that bridge regardless of the central line) who don't seem to care about anyone safety and drive like idiots.

Why are so many people impatient? On the video if he'd just waited a few minutes he'd passed quite safely.

Another local, that is indeed that lovely bridge - I recognized it first time I saw the video and was shocked at the guys driving.

As for why are so many drivers impatient I really can't come up with any other suggestion then selfishness. I've had plenty of drivers race round me only to turn left or swing back in to avoid hitting a traffic island.

Clever Pun

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

rmhodv wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlJNodCgKM

I reckonise that stretch of road, it it the bridge going from Elmers End towards Lower Addiscombe? If it is then very dangerous. Very narrow.

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

At the end of the day there are impatient drivers out there (such as the one in Gaz's video, I wouldn't even attempt an overtook on that bridge regardless of the central line) who don't seem to care about anyone safety and drive like idiots.

Why are so many people impatient? On the video if he'd just waited a few minutes he'd passed quite safely.

Another local, that is indeed that lovely bridge - I recognized it first time I saw the video and was shocked at the guys driving.

As for why are so many drivers impatient I really can't come up with any other suggestion then selfishness. I've had plenty of drivers race round me only to turn left or swing back in to avoid hitting a traffic island.

Never had a problem on that bridge myself... saying that, I take secondary knowing they can't overtake still but I'm not antagonising them (by taking up their precious space)

Maybe Gaz is just really slow

Specialized Needs

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

tjwood wrote:

jimmypippa wrote:

These together mean that you must not overtake cyclists doing more than 10mph where the line nearest you is solid.

If you're being really picky, you can legally overtake, provided you don't cross the solid line to do so. But that's very unlikely to be possible on a road where there are these lines in the first place.

Of course I don't know the full particulars of this case and we have to assume the coroner made the right decision. It just served to highlight a problem I have experienced on numerous occasions - drivers seem to be unaware or deliberately ignore the law in respect of solid white lines.

I've seen plenty of drivers ignoring the solid white lines in Croydon. One particular stretch is Addiscombe Road (sorry to bore those not from the area.....) which has trams running in both directions. There are 2 tram stops on opposite sides of the road, offset slightly due to housing, that have solid white lines down the edge to try to stop people overtaking the tram when it stops. On many occasions I've seen people just swerve out round the tram and carry on down the road. This is despite the fact that they could come face to face with a tram or bus (my wife had this happen once when a bus overtook the tram, ignoring the solid lines)

At the end of the day there are impatient drivers out there (such as the one in Gaz's video, I wouldn't even attempt an overtook on that bridge regardless of the central line) who don't seem to care about anyone safety and drive like idiots.

There are impatient people. There are people who will break the law in the expectation that they will get away with it (if I'm honest, I know I do - although I try to rationalise it and make excuses). For those reasons, what happened in Gaz's video, while worrying and (IMHO) inexcusable, is not wholly unexpected.

However, I thought the point in the original post was that the findings of fact drawn by a court (the Coroner's court) appear to have neglected to take into account the law as applied to the evidence of the circumstances. The law says that a driver should not cross the unbroken line unless they can (safely, presumably) pass a vehicle doing 10mph or less. The comment here is that the deceased is likely to have been doing >10mph (given his experience and the situation), and the lorry driver claims he knows he left enough room because he was over the while line.

Not having read the full report, I do not know whether what is described above is actually the situation, but this seems to me to be what the OP was saying.

And I agree with him (if it is true).

Bassjunkieuk

Specialized Needs wrote:

There are impatient people. There are people who will break the law in the expectation that they will get away with it (if I'm honest, I know I do - although I try to rationalise it and make excuses). For those reasons, what happened in Gaz's video, while worrying and (IMHO) inexcusable, is not wholly unexpected.

However, I thought the point in the original post was that the findings of fact drawn by a court (the Coroner's court) appear to have neglected to take into account the law as applied to the evidence of the circumstances. The law says that a driver should not cross the unbroken line unless they can (safely, presumably) pass a vehicle doing 10mph or less. The comment here is that the deceased is likely to have been doing >10mph (given his experience and the situation), and the lorry driver claims he knows he left enough room because he was over the while line.

Not having read the full report, I do not know whether what is described above is actually the situation, but this seems to me to be what the OP was saying.

And I agree with him (if it is true).

I don't want to detract from the OP's point, I was merely giving another example of where drivers ignore road markings that are essentially there for their own safety. On the section I described above I dread to think what the consequences would be if a car had a head on collision with a tram due to the fact the driver couldn't wait behind if for the minute (usually much less) that they are stopped at these tram stops.

Reading over the articles though it does appear the road was in a bad state of repair and it was dark and raining, both of which would make for challenging cycling conditions even for an experienced rider. As you say though if the driver was following the law as set out in the OP this may have never happened but unfortunately it appears there was only a single witness to the accident so we have to rely on the lorry drivers account of what happened.

gaz545

Clever Pun wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

rmhodv wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlJNodCgKM

I reckonise that stretch of road, it it the bridge going from Elmers End towards Lower Addiscombe? If it is then very dangerous. Very narrow.

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

At the end of the day there are impatient drivers out there (such as the one in Gaz's video, I wouldn't even attempt an overtook on that bridge regardless of the central line) who don't seem to care about anyone safety and drive like idiots.

Why are so many people impatient? On the video if he'd just waited a few minutes he'd passed quite safely.

Another local, that is indeed that lovely bridge - I recognized it first time I saw the video and was shocked at the guys driving.

As for why are so many drivers impatient I really can't come up with any other suggestion then selfishness. I've had plenty of drivers race round me only to turn left or swing back in to avoid hitting a traffic island.

Never had a problem on that bridge myself... saying that, I take secondary knowing they can't overtake still but I'm not antagonising them (by taking up their precious space)

Maybe Gaz is just really slow

LOL! me slow?

I'd never take secondary on that bridge, if one person tries it, then the second will follow.

Bassjunkieuk

gaz545 wrote:

LOL! me slow?

I'd never take secondary on that bridge, if one person tries it, then the second will follow.

I don't tend to go over that one much myself but usually have the same problem on the railway bridge on Tennison Road heading towards the football ground. The worst instance was when we had roadworks meaning temp lights and 1-way traffic and I was riding the wife's bike home with the newly fitted child seat on the back. The driver of the car is damn lucky the seat was empty as if they'd pulled the same overtake in that narrow single lane when I did have a kid on board I would have had a few strong words with them......

Clever Pun

gaz545 wrote:

LOL! me slow

I'd never take secondary on that bridge, if one person tries it, then the second will follow.

No one has ever tried it... overtaking on the brow of a hill is really dumb even for the most neanderthal(ic...ist?) of drivers

last year I took that bridge say 200-250 times in that direction and not a sniff

rjsterry

Not sure how big Gaz is, but I think your, ahem, physique might have something to do with that CP. That and the beard and tattoos.

Clever Pun

rjsterry wrote:

Not sure how big Gaz is, but I think your, ahem, physique might have something to do with that CP. That and the beard and tattoos.

for a large part of that the calves wern't inked, plus the beard is only really visible from the side/front

I don't buy that as an excuse/justification tbh as SlowGaz's clip is one time compared with loads of times over that bridge all in all (he said so himself in the original thread).

Just an unlucky timing/meet