After a left-turning driver knocks off a cyclist in a bike lane, she stops to explain that she is "pregnant and wearing glasses"


A cyclist knocked off their bike by a left-turning car in London on Friday evening was given an unexpected explanation by the driver: she is pregnant and wearing glasses.

The explanation can be heard in a video of the incident filmed by Moisa Sandu-Andrei, also known by their YouTube account name of ‘Romanian Cyclist’.

Sandu-Andrei was following several cyclists as they ride along Cycle Superhighway 2, when one of them crashes after a Vauxhall Corsa turns into their path. The driver appears to have been oblivious to the cyclist’s presence, despite them riding in the centre of the cycle lane, using lights and wearing a hi-visibility jacket.

The rider then moves to the side of the road with help from passers by, including Sandu-Andrei. The driver pulls over, and winds down her window. She is asked by someone why she wasn’t looking where she was going, to which she replies “I am pregnant” and then explains that she is wearing glasses. The driver later says “I really, really hope you are okay”.

>>> Incident between cyclist and taxi at junction opens debate as to who’s at fault

After sitting on the kerb for a spell, the cyclist gets back up on their feet but we do not see whether they re-mount their bike, or the extent of their injuries.

CS2 is currently being upgraded by Transport for London so that cyclists are segregated from traffic: this incident took place at a junction, where cars have to cross the cycle lane.

Further upgrades to CS2 will see “separate traffic signals for cyclists, making connections to and from the cycle route safer” according to TfL. The work is scheduled to be completed in spring 2016.

  • Seb K

    You are allowed an opinion very true . Here’s mine : SHE IS AT FAULT . She indicates at the last minute to turn so he has right of way, his speed has nothing to do with this as she indicated at the last minute to turn and then he didn’t have time to brake because she indicated at the last minute to turn – do you see a pattern here ?!!! She also didn’t get out of the car which clearly show she is a selfish person and I feel sorry for the husband and eventually the kid .

  • harry smith

    filtering is not and never has been an offence, and this wasn’t filtering because THERE’S A CYCLE LANE.

  • Michael Hartley

    One is required, to show a red light, positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 1500mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind. If capable of emitting a steady light it must be marked as conforming to BS3648, or BS6102/3, or an equivalent EC standard.

    If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.

    also Flashers….

    Thanks to the 2005 RVLR amendment on 23 October of that year it finally became legal to have a flashing light on a pedal cycle, provided it flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1 – 4Hz).

    Even better: it became possible for a flashing light to be approved, meaning no other light would be needed in that position. And since BS6102/3 does not cater for flashing, approval is granted simply on the basis of brightness (as specified above).

    Because DfT very much prefer things to be evaluated against a proper technical standard wherever possible: any flashing lamp that is also capable of emitting a steady light is approved only if it conforms with BS6102/3 when switched to steady mode. Since most flashing lights do also have a steady mode, they’re legal but not approved, so you’ll probably need another lamp that is.

    Unfortunately Britain is not the force it once was in the world cycle market, with the result that very few manufacturers can nowadays be bothered to test and mark their products to our standards. So it can be really hard nowadays, to find any approved lamp for sale these days, flashing or not!

    Fortunately our Police seem hardly more concerned by legal niceties than lamp manufacturers. Since it became theoretically legal to ride a bike with just flashing lights on it, they’re nowadays no more likely to quibble its legal status than one equipped with steady lights – unless they’re rather dim (the lights that is) or involved in an accident. Then it’s possible that someone might look a bit closer.

  • Phyl Rubble


  • Phyl Rubble

    It was just ironic, old bean.

  • jeffity

    This isn’t the first time she hasn’t seen someone coming…

  • ummm…

    Hahahahahaha, OK. I am probably in the top 98th percentile in self righteous but you are on top of the heap. Well done. Such passion for the minuscule. Also, please let us know what format we are to write our comments on internet blogs. We cant all be playing by different rules can we.

  • Phyl Rubble

    Hmm…so you’ve changed my name to “rubbish”, or “turdburglar”, and brought “vomit” into the discussion. And you’re telling ME to calm down? Yikes! I don’t imagine your long-dead friend Marcel Proust would be much impressed by your language…this’ll be my last post on the subject, but do try to answer this question (politely if you can manage it): Who–or whom–am I referring to with this statement?: “After the collision–when the dust had settled–they reported the RTC to the police”.
    So, who do I mean by “they”?
    1) the cyclist AND the driver?
    2) Just the cyclist?–the one you insist on referring to as “they”…
    3) “They”….just the driver?
    4) Or “they”, (two of the other riders who witnessed the incident)?
    If you can answer, with any degree of certainty, who did the reporting, then you win your rather rancid argument—you and your pal Prousty, that is. If you don’t know for sure, you’re hoist by your own petard, squire. And by the way, when you badmouth people, you only denigrate yourself. Goodbye, and ride carefully.

  • Rupert Guy Petch

    Really?? I think you’ll find that undertaking is now an offence even if you are a cyclist! Yes she turned left but he was almost level doing the same speed. You check your mirrors when turning left while moving not turn your head backwards looking for flashing cycles coming you up. If she had had to stop in the road for him to undertake on her inside then he would also be at fault. Yes I do drive thank you with a clean licence. All road users need to be aware of where traffic might move and respect the others lanes too. She fails badly by not getting out of the vehicle obviously. It’s not always clear cut just saying, I am allowed an opinion.

  • harry smith

    I seriously hope you don’t drive a car. Your ignorance of road traffic law is amazing.

  • Rupert Guy Petch

    Not to condone her actions but he is going very fast on what is effectively an inside lane and undertook her as she was slow and indicating at the junction as much as she crossed him. Were his lights at the rear flashing without a secondary static light was that the same at the front? This contravenes uk traffic law and actually can impair visibility as you effectively disappear when the flash is off. I am a cyclist and looking at this both were at fault.

  • Harri

    pregnant or not, check blind spots

  • ummm…

    I was tempted to forgive her because sometimes I am thoughtless too, however if I just nearly ran somebody down ID REMEMBER TO GET OUT OF THE CAR. Especially if i stay at the scene. I haven’t tested this personally tho.

  • ummm…

    oh sorry “…are very fluid”. Anything else rubbish, I mean rubble.

  • ummm…

    ummm…linguistics will tell you that language and its laws is very fluid. Authorities say what is correct and what is incorrect. However, these authorities don’t own the language and often incorporate aspects of language when they become more mainstream. However, vernaculars and dialects are numerous. It makes little difference what you or an authority thinks is grammar because the idea was effectively conveyed. You are just being a turdburgler. Language is to convey ideas, not to enforce laws. If Proust was alive he would vomit at the sight of your insistence.

  • ummm…


  • ummm…

    so she says I’m pregnant and I usually have bad eyesight. So, now I’m basically blind but still need to go about my life. I decided to risk it, sorry.

  • ummm…

    She couldn’t be bothered to get out of her car? What a disgusting creep of a person.

  • Phyl Rubble

    Calm down yourself. The cyclist in this case is indeed identified as a male, so it’s he and him and his, (not “they, them, and their”.) And he does not “identify as”—-he “IS IDENTIFIED AS”. If you think that’s a woman sitting on the kerb, then why not say so? When you’re in a hole, it’s best to stop digging.

  • Fs

    calm down. ‘Their’ can be used instead of the gender specific ‘his’ or ‘hers’.
    We know that gender can be spectral, so those who do not identify as a ‘him’ or a ‘her’ can be called ‘they’.

  • barraob1

    Is it not “do they” as opposed to “does they”

  • Phyl Rubble

    She didn’t see because she didn’t look. Maybe “SMIDSY” should be “SMIDL” (Sorry mate I didn’t look) ! Rotten driving, but apart from that, the report says “A cyclist knocked off their bike..”…. does he share the bike with someone? No, so it’s knocked off HIS bike, surely. And again, “despite THEM riding in the centre of the lane..”—so, were there two riders on the bike? And later, the cyclist gets back on “their feet”—whose feet would that be?—and do “they” remount “their” bike? Please get a grip of some basic grammar–this is all most confusing!

    The columnist—does they write his stuff themselves? AAAGH!

  • Tony Cooper

    Lock her up…and do the test, if her kid knocks cyclists off lol….she should be heavily fined no excuse

  • & thats an excuse for such driving ?

  • Giles Dumont

    She’s so pregnant she cannot get out of her car and see if the cyclist is okay. Poor thing.

  • Nic Lowe

    The scariest thing here is just how on earth she didn’t see the bike.

  • Simon Alexander

    Vision can change when pregnant. But not usually with any significance. If she wears glasses and feels her vision has changed that mush she needs to stop driving.