On Sunday night the curtain came down on the 20th Commonwealth Games. For twelve days athletes from 71 different nations and territories came together in Glasgow and, despite my best efforts to remain typically aloof, it was great. Sure there were a few bumps along the way, but they were met with a typically Glaswegian blend of humour and compassion. We chuckled when Sri Lanka's cycling team was pulled over by the police on the M74. We applauded when Billy Bilsland loaned the Malawi team new bikes to race on when their own were damaged. We threw open the doors of our city and we loved it.
Well, most of us loved it anyway. For Gemma Doyle, Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire, there were some parts of the Games that she just couldn't stomach... in particular, the cyclists.
There are many, many things that could be said about this tweet...
I could point out that complaining about a team preparing for an event - as it happens, the Men's Individual Time Trial the following day - isn't exactly in keeping with the spirit of 'The Friendly Games'.
I could tell you that the cyclist Gemma Doyle 'spotted' was actually Luke Rowe who, the following day, finished the 40km TT route in 52 minutes. That's an average speed of 29mph. Average. If she think's that's slow, she should come and see me on my commute to work in the morning. It would make her cry.
If I had the time I could speak at length about the fact that cyclists are entitled to use the road just as much as Gemma Doyle is in her car and that if she is driving too fast to react safely to other traffic on the road then she is driving too fast. Frankly though, that argument has already been made (and won) in the many replies to her original post.
What I do want to talk about though, what I think needs to be explored, is the pains she went to to clarify that she didn't have a problem with the cyclist on the road, only with the car following behind.
Just think about what she's saying here. A car travelling 'slowly' along the A82 is dangerous because faster cars approaching from behind might not be able to react in time to avoid a collision. However, a cyclist travelling on the same road at exactly the same speed is fine. How can both of those statements be true? Surely they can't?
Well, they can... but only if those same cars which are unable to pull out around the slow-moving car don't bother trying to pull out around the slow-moving bicycle. Or, to put it another way, if the car weren't there to force Gemma Doyle to overtake using the other lane she wouldn't have bothered pulling out at all to overtake the cyclist but, instead, would just have squeezed by in the same lane at 70mph.
Whether we're talking about a professional cyclist who has just ridden Le Tour or a casual cyclist on their way to work, that is an absolutely atrocious attitude to take. To be so dismissive of another person's safety and wellbeing, to show so little regard for human life, must surely call into question whether that person is fit to hold a driving license, let alone fit to hold public office.
I could go on (and on) but I think I'll leave the last word to Luke Rowe himself who, with this exclamation point, managed to convey the contempt felt by cyclists across the land...
I received an email earlier today from Ralph Roberts, Managing Director of McGill's Bus Service Ltd., in response to my complaint about this piece of driving.
In summary, Mr Roberts (and, by extension, McGill's Bus Service Ltd) has found there to be nothing wrong with this driving and he gives three reasons:
He estimates that the driver doesn't ever get closer than 1 metre from me;
A metre is quite long, isn't it? Well no, not really. The last time most of us saw a metre-stick was in school. Remember how Wagon Wheels used to be the size of dinner plates and if you fell in a bag of Hula Hoops you'd be lost for a week? Everything seems bigger when you're littler.
Is a metre (a real metre) really a safe distance to leave between a cyclist and a bus weighing in at perhaps 15-20 tonnes? If it were your child cycling down the road and a bus went by only a metre away would you be happy?
And if you think a metre is safe, what about 50cm? Watch the video again and you'll see my reflection as I reach out and tap on the bus door. I haven't adjusted course to move closer to the bus but not only do I not need to lean over to reach the window, I don't even need to straighten my arm. I've just measured it (with a real-life metre stick) and that puts the bus a little over 45cm from me. Safe? I hardly think so.
He points out that the driver doesn't enter the feeder to the ASL;
Bully for him. Does he want a medal?
Does it really need to be said that the feeder to an ASL is not a target for drivers to aim at? As I said at the time, I'm perfectly entitled to use the entire lane. That there is paint on the road does not make it compulsory for me to cycle on that paint. It also doesn't give drivers license to use their 20-tonne vehicles to force me into a space on the road where they think I should be.
He asks me to consider the issues that the driver faces 'in relation to the available road space'.
Mr Roberts seems to be saying that this is acceptable driving because there wasn't enough space on the road for safer driving. I really don't understand this.
This is a dual carriageway and the right-hand lane was completely clear. If the driver felt that I was going to hold him up sufficiently to justify overtaking, why not use that lane?
Of course, we were approaching traffic lights which were red and the driver, having pointed to the feeder and told me it was my lane, clearly expected me to use the ASL. So if he knew I was going to end up in front of him at the lights anyway, why overtake at all? Especially if, as Mr Roberts suggests, there isn't enough space on this road for a safe overtake?
You might notice that Mr Roberts chooses not to mention the subsequent punishment pass (again, far less than 1 metre).
You might also notice the part where he refers to the driver having been 'provoked by an angry member of the public'. Victim-blaming much?
Anyway, here's the full text of his email.
Dear Mr Soap,
I am responding to your complaint on behalf of McGill’s, I am the managing director and the person ultimately responsible for road safety in this business.
As a regular cyclist and motorcyclist, I am very aware of the issues you highlight in your email and video. We train all of our drivers in cycle awareness and we take part in various cycling initiatives, the next being the filming of a cycling awareness campaign in conjunction with Glasgow City Council at Pollok Park.
I have reviewed your video a number of times and I am sorry to say that I can find no real fault with the actions of the driver in question. I accept that he moves into the nearside lane in anticipation that it will allow approaching traffic from behind him, the ability to occupy the offside lane and make progress away from the traffic lights. I estimate from the road markings that he comes no closer than 1 to 1.5 metres from you, and yes, I am familiar with the road traffic act and the highway code. Your approach to the cyclist’s box at the traffic lights is clearly marked and at no point does our driver come close to encroaching upon that area.
Regarding your point about the driver offering you his pencil, I concede that this is less than optimal behaviour. In my driver’s defence, we employ human beings, not robots. Sometimes, when provoked by an angry member of public, they may respond in a sub optimal fashion and I apologise for this and would assure you that he will have his customer service skills polished within our training academy.
Please don’t feel that I am making light of your complaint, I take all complaints seriously and personally review complaints made on a weekly basis in order to understand where our shortcomings are and to help shape our organisation’s thinking moving forward.
I will not preach to you about what to expect on our nation’s roads, you will have plenty of experience of that given your level of preparedness and practiced ability at conveying your message. However, on this occasion, I would ask that you look at what is an acceptable driving standard from a driver of a large vehicle, and have a think about what issues they may face in relation to the available road space.
Yours sincerely
RALPH R. ROBERTS| Managing Director
McGill's Bus Service Ltd
And here's the email I originally sent to McGill's (CC'd to Govan police, Frank McAveety, the Scottish Traffic Commissioner and SPT):
Dear Sir/Madam,
Cycling home from work today I was involved in an incident involving one of your buses: SJ57 DDZ / J2403. As I approached a set of traffic lights on Paisley Road West the driver of your bus drew level with me and needlessly moved into my lane forcing me into the gutter against a metal barrier. When I asked if he couldn’t have simply held back rather than pull alongside the driver pointed to the narrow strip of paint which leads to the advanced stop line and told me that was the cycle lane I should be using.
I wonder if you could please tell me whether this driving meets the standards which you require from your drivers. In particular, do you believe that this meets the requirements of Rule 163 of the Highway Code which states that drivers should “give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car” and is the driver’s understanding of Rule 63 correct? I would also be interested to know your reaction to the clear ‘punishment pass’ the driver made once the traffic lights had changed to green, where he overtook me in such a way as to come within only a foot or so of the back of my bicycle whilst accelerating past me.
If you do not believe this driver met the standards you expect, can I presume you will be taking action to ensure that he, and all of your drivers, are clear that this kind of dangerous driving will not be tolerated?
I would also like to draw your attention to the driver’s reaction when I took note of his number plate. I am sorry to say that this is not the first incident of dangerous driving by one of your drivers which I have encountered and I am also sorry to say that the reactions of your drivers has, rightly or wrongly, given me the impression that such behaviour is institutional at McGill’s. Having your driver laugh and offer me his pencil to write down his details today has only served to reinforce this opinion.
I commute to work by bicycle on a daily basis. As you can imagine, having somebody put me in danger like this is not something I am willing to simply ignore. I am therefore copying in several other individuals and organisations with this email who I believe will have an interest in knowing that you take seriously your responsibility to the safety of vulnerable road users who come in contact with your buses.
For those of you who don't know who he is, Keith Peat is the man behind the Drive East Midlands blog and the Drivers' Union website. A self-proclaimed road safety 'expert', Keith has a number of 'interesting' suggestions to make our roads safer (check out his sites for some real doozies).
My interest piqued with his insistence that cyclists should be banned from the roads entirely. Sometimes he argues that this is for our own safety, to save us from having to trust the drivers around us not to, you know, mow us down. But sometimes his veneer slips and he betrays his true motives; he just doesn't like cyclists.
Recently Keith purchased a dash cam to show examples of cyclists "using their bodies and bikes to dominate and bully car drivers". The video below is one in which he chases down six cyclists (who have aggrieved him simply by cycling on the road) before overtaking far too closely on a blind bend. As with his other videos, Keith blames his own dangerous driving on the actions of completely innocent cyclists who have done nothing more to earn his wrath than share a road with him.
All of this is by way of an introduction to the man (and motivation) behind this recent blog post from Drive East Midlands in which he argues that the safe distance for a vehicle to overtake a cyclist is only as far as is needed for the driver to avoid an immediate collision with the bicycle.
Let me be clear at this point that this response is, in no way, an attempt to change Keith's opinion. Experience says that's not an option. Instead, this is for anybody who might be looking for the logical rebuttal of the illogical.
Keith begins his blog post saying that he believes that rule 163 of the Highway Code is ambiguous. By my reading, his confusion lies in his misunderstanding of the instruction 'Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car.
When Keith read that instruction and looked at the picture he has, wrongly in my opinion, assumed that it means you should also leave a gap of several feet between your car and another car when overtaking.
I think that what it actually means is that you should treat the cyclist as if he were in a car and pull out as though there were a car in the space he occupies.
Perhaps it might be better demonstrated if the picture were like this:
The reason for this is simple. Cyclists do not travel in perfectly straight lines. We may have to avoid potholes or debris on the road. We may be caught by the wash as a large vehicle passes us by. We may suffer sudden mechanical faults. We need room on the road to be able to deal with these things and you cannot assume, as a driver or a cyclist, that you will have any warning. If you doubt it, you should watch what happened to this cyclist when his crank arm snapped.
Keith says that if he has to give a cyclist this much room then in "bumper to bumper slow moving traffic" it would be impossible to overtake a cyclist. I am, I admit, confused as to why anybody would feel the need to overtake a cyclist whilst stuck in a bumper-to-bumper queue, but even if you were so inclined, Highway Code Rule 163 has it covered:
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues.
Unfortunately for Keith, at the core of his argument is this statement:
We must first accept that the clearance given by drivers will be entirely their judgement call and if effected without collision or causing a cyclist to fall off, it will corroborate that the driver's judgement was correct; no matter how perceived from the cyclist's perspective. Cyclists may claim what they like but the outcome justifies the means.
I admit, I had to read this a couple of times. My brain simply couldn't process it the first time around. Basically, what Keith is saying here is that a driver can behave in whatever manner he chooses as long as he personally judges it to be safe. So long as he doesn't actually have an accident then he is proven to be right and his driving is deemed to be safe.
In such a world a near miss would no longer be a near miss but, rather, inch-perfect judgement. There could no longer be any notion of accident prevention, only cleanup afterwards.
Stating that we must accept this to be true doesn't mean that we actually do have to accept it... I certainly don't. And once you refuse to accept this first statement, Keith's solution to the problem simply becomes irrelevant. We don't need to rewrite the Highway Code to accommodate drivers doing whatever they want and we don't need to ban cyclists from the road to protect them from those drivers.
