Today’s offering in our Near Miss of the Day series shows a van driver on the outskirts of Maidstone ignoring a sign instructing him to give way to oncoming traffic at a chicane designed to slow motorists down – and in the process forcing a cyclist who was riding uphill in the opposite direction to swerve to the side to avoid getting hit.
It took place on Spot Lane in Bearsted, a village on the edge of the Kent county town, with the cyclist it happened to telling us: “I was cycling UP the hill- the fat bustards in the van were coming down the hill.”
We took a look on Google Street View at what signage the driver would have encountered coming down the hill ahead of the chicane, and the instruction to give way to oncoming traffic is clear enough, as are the road markings.
Of course, we don’t have to tell you that it’s frustrating enough when you’re in a motor vehicle and a driver coming the other way ignores this kind of sign … but it’s many times worse when you’re riding a bike uphill and have your momentum destroyed, not to mention possibly having to get your feet out of the pedals pretty sharpish if you’re riding clipless.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc">info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
25 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 562: Three blokes in a van speed through chicane, forcing cyclist riding uphill with priority to swerve”
Looking at the hedge height
Looking at the hedge height and shadow AND the street furniture, I wonder if they even noticed the bike until they had cleared the giveway and he swung out around the first chicane. Yes, they are then arseholes for not slowing, being considerate when he was noticed.
Without more footage from
Without more footage from before – you may be right the cyclist may have been obscured – then there was a car in front of the van which may have also blocked his view.
I suspect the cyclist could be equally if not more at fault in this instance, the video is cut to start when the van is already past the give way and heading onto the other side to enter the chicane, and once you are past the give way sign and in the restriction traffic coming the other way should give way to you.
Most people seem to forget this, and is why cars always follow the one in front into these things – it may be impolite but not breaking the law.
Technically the van is at
Technically the van is might be at fault for failing to give way.Edit : Looking at google maps image, I suspect the van had passed the give way line before the video started given how far it is from the chicane. If they have passed that point the cyclist should also yield (on the basis of collision avoidance)
While vehicles should give way unless they can see it is clear, in practice noone waits for the vehicle infront to clear chicanes etc unless they can see oncoming traffic. I would hope when cycling I pay more attention than the rider here given this is an obvious conflict point and common, plausible mistake…
The title implies something far more aggressive than what actually happened.
If its any thing like the one
If its any thing like the one near us, it is actually impossible to see oncoming vehicles once you have embarked around the chicane as they built it on a right hand bend, so there are frequent near misses there.
My favourite one, on Frogmore
My favourite one, on Frogmore Street in central Bristol:
https://goo.gl/maps/exYqm9qXfnTtGouE8
Going in this direction, the traffic coming from the other way has priority but you cannot see whether anything is coming because of the left-hand bend and the pub in the way…
(Traffic coming from the other direction also cannot see if anyone has already entered the chicane, obviously).
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
pretty much came to a dead stop in the first restriction of the chicane
More than 5 seconds would
More than 5 seconds would have been useful.
How visible was the cyclist?
hirsute wrote:
Indeed, at the start of the clip the van has already passed the give way lines.
It seems to me that the van driver’s view of the cyclist is probably blocked by the blue car on approach, the van driver and cylist reach the chicane at about the same time, but going through the footage frame by frame, the van appears to cone to a dead stop in the restriction while the cyclist moves into the driveway to allow them to pass.
Yes, the van has delayed the cyclist when the cyclist had priority, but as the van stops the only way there is a crash here is if the cyclist rides into a stationary vehicle.
I’m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, that they didn’t see the cyclist before the give way lines, and did stop as soon as they saw them.
I have the full 5-min clip
I have the full 5-min clip from my Go-Pro . I only uploaded the short section as the span of attention is generally short.
Visibility-? HiViz cycling jacket and light on bike. Very visible. The blokes saw me alright as they were laughing and ‘geezering’.
But of course they wouldn’t
But of course they wouldn’t wait. After all, cyclists aren’t real oncoming traffic, are they…
The van driver read the road
The van driver read the road exactly as the highways designer wrote it – with no thought whatsoever for cyclists.
Why – why would you design a road feature to slow down the slowest vehicle on the road? Why would you design a feature purposely to bring cyclists into mortal conflict with motor traffic? I think the answer in both cases is, “well, we actually didn’t design the chicane with that purpose in mind, in fact we did not consider cyclists in the design at all. Period.”
Is it any wonder drivers read the road the way that it was written?
LTN 1/07 Traffic calming –
LTN 1/07 Traffic calming – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/918429/ltn-1-07_Traffic-calming-guidance.pdf
Quite – and good practice
Quite – and good practice would therefore be to include channels that cyclists can proceed through.
Doubt it would have stopped this driver doing exactly the same though. Unfortunately “entitlement bumps” haven’t been invented yet …
Except those channels will
Except those channels will never get cleaned, and so will inevitably be full of leaves and tufts of grass, and serve only to give drivers an additional reason to barge through in the face of an approaching bicycle, because “you should be using the cycle lane”.
That’s because of poor design
That’s because of poor design, again. It can’t be too hard to get it right. But when they just install what are basically gutters as an afterthought either side of the regular car-centric design, then no, that won’t work.
Since the purpose here is to slow motor traffic, and we are ways told that bicycle infrastructure does exactly that, surely some bright engineer can come up with an arrangement that actually does, for once, prioritise cycle space to the detriment of motor vehicle speed. Two birds, one stone.
I’m not sure changing designs
I’m not sure changing designs would make much difference. It’s more about councils having the foresight and the will to include them in maintenance plans. In the same way that cycle tracks are often rendered useless to many in low temperatures because no-one thought to treat them against ice, or if they did, didn’t consider it worth doing.
I never use the channels,
I never use the channels, always full of leaves and you never know what else might be hising in there. I’m thinking broken glass, not scary monsters.
The van driver simply charged
The van driver simply charged on behind the other car, assuming that whatever that car had caused to stop would not have time to move into their path. Except a cyclist, which obviously doesnt matter and would be forced to move out of their way.
I’m not too sure on this, I
I’m not too sure on this, I think the van driver had already begun to move through the junction, and it would have been daft to slam on when he didn’t really put the cyclist in danger, or hold him up. I think it is a case of common sense applied here.
Those cunting things should
Those cunting things should never have been installed. They should all be removed. I fail to see the logic whereby you attempt to improve road safety by placing obstructions in the road. Not just these fucktarded chicane things which exarcerbate issues of bad driving, but there are also concrete bollards sometimes put in place in the center of the road, presumably to discourage overtaking. These things have the opposite of the intended effect.
A simple message to all highway authorities: Keep the fuckin roads clear and free from obstruction.
They’re too god dam dumb and intransigent to do it tho.
New word I’ve learnt today –
New word I’ve learnt today – can’t wait to use it!
Which word – “intransigent”
Which word – “intransigent” or “fucktarded”? I get to use the latter somewhat more often than the former 🙂
Could not agree more. There
Could not agree more. There are some down the road from me into a village, which simply cause un-necessary congestion and traffic noise, make no difference whatsoever to speeds, in fact they make safety worse.
The only useful purpose they serve is as a convenient starting gate for our local cycling club time trial!
Could Road.cc engage with
Could Road.cc engage with other interested parties, such as Cycling UK, to provide a “FixMyStreet” style reporting service of idiotic/stupid/dangerous traffic management installations such as these?
It is beyond belief some of these traffic management schemes Highways Engineers inflict on us.
The give way sign means give
The give way sign means give way to oncoming traffic. The car only just manages to be clear of the chicane before the cyclist arrives, the van is no where near. Once the mistake has been made it seems to me he does slow down but it’s hard to tell from the video, at least he didn’t just head straight at the cyclist so I’d be grateful for that.
A lot of posters seem to think that if you pass the give way sign before the other vehicle reaches the obstruction then you have right of way. I can’t find any where in the highway code where it says this.
I can find this : “153. Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas.”
Just to empahasise “Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them.” and “Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs.”. This seems pretty clear to me.
If I’ve got this wrong, and I probably have, please let me know where in the highway code I need to look.