With our Near Miss of the Day series now heading towards 600 videos showing motorists putting cyclists in danger, we thought we’d seen it all.
Not so, as it turns out, with this latest clip showing two drivers – one in a car, one in a van – both pulling out on a cyclist, from opposite directions, as he approaches a crossroads.
There’s a fair bit to unpack from the footage, not least how to assess where the danger is coming from.
The rider has to swerve away from the road as the motorist in the red car pulls out from the right – and then has to swerve back in as the van comes straight across at the junction.
Both motorists have come across the broken lines at the junction telling them that they should give way to traffic on the main road – our suspicion is that the driver of the third vehicle here, another white van, has flashed their lights to tell them to go, and that none of them has spotted the cyclist approaching.
The clip was sent in by road.cc user Sevenfold, who said it happened in the rain yesterday close to the village of Shenstone, which lies just south of Lichfield in Staffordshire.
“Unfortunately, the registrations are not clear enough to report,” he told us.
And perhaps keeping with the zeitgeist – see this story from earlier in the week – he added: “If you can hear any swearing, I apologise in advance.”
> 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 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
55 thoughts on “Double Near Miss of the Day 587: Two drivers pull out on cyclist – from opposite sides of junction (includes swearing)”
Just… wow! Mobile slalom
Just… wow! Mobile slalom course right there.
Took me ages to work out it
Took me ages to work out it was Wall and not Shenstone as I cycle most of lanes south of the Toll Road and didn’t recognize it.
One of those where if the “last” van had decided to exercise it’s “right of way” and decided, “yes, there is plenty of room to make that turn withut needed to cut the corner and hit the car, it probably wouldn’t have happened.
It is one of those ones where the danger is there when you realise the “last” van is stopped but by then you are going downhill in the wet with a shit road surface so hard to slow down easily.
Weirdly I thought it looked
Weirdly I thought it looked Wall crossroads just from the preview image. Thought “nah, can’t be” but clicked on it just to see and it was.
I rarely see any cars there, can’t believe this guy came across vehicles coming from all directions.
Yup. Wall heading to
Yup. Wall heading to Shenstone – know it well and recognised it instantly.
And as you say, it’s unusual enough to see a single motor vehicle at that crossroads – I don’t think I’ve seen two there at the same time, let alone three.
Hence it’s not ths sort of junction that anyone needs to flash anyone else out at. Although isn’t the Trooper pub just down the road that the van on the right emerged from? I wonder if a visit there had affected someone’s judgement.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
ITYM ‘priority’.
They all had right of way.
Yep, thanks for clearing up
Yep, thanks for clearing up my poor expanation there. fixed.
A complete lack of awareness
A complete lack of awareness from all 3 motorists – and one should never rely on other motorists signaling/flashing you through – but loads of people do it. Just don’t!!
Velophaart_95 wrote:
That’s how I got taken off my bike in ’04. I was cycling along at about 15 to 20ish – old dawes steel-framed MTB, so pretty much flat out I guess – on a very wide road. A driver decided to overtake me. Ok, but why are you not completing your overtake? I wondered. Oh right, it’s cos you’ve just flashed your lights at the oncoming who is signalling right. Who decides to jab his throttle to accept the kind invitation….
I hit the side of this car without actually having time to even touch the brakes (although I have a distinct memory of a series of thoughts, basically checking and discarding options, between realisation and impact. which was strange.)
The frame of my bike (dawes MTB, 501 tubes) literally crease bent on the down and cross tubes just behind the head tube – the front wheel was overlapping the seat tube.
Police attended “driving without due care yadda yadda” but surprise didn’t actually follow up…. The initial o’take car of course didn’t stop, even to see if everyone was ok.
The driver I hit then argued (a few days later by phone) that it was my fault, cos he had right of way as he’d been flashed, and I obs o’took on the inside.
I asked him to please sum that up and state it in his account, but we should let his insurance company make the decision.
In fairness the Insurance company were all over it and ensured that hlemet bike were replaced, injuries compensated, clothes contributed to considering depreciation. The only quibble I had was that gloves were considered clothes not safety equipt, so weren’t replaced outright, but really that was minor.
In later years I spent some time as driver trainer for a delivery company (not DPD! or Yodel!, or Alliance Health Care…..) and that story was brought out on numerous occasions as to why you don’t take someone flashing lights as you’re free to go – flashing lights means “I am here” and nothing else.
But, I was asked once (only once) “But what were you wearing?”……
Some years ago now I ended up
Some years ago now I ended up being a witness to a nasty road crash. I was on my motorbike, waiting at a side road to cross a main road. The main road was backed up with traffic. There was a gap between the cars so another driver flashed his lights to let a woman cut across in her car. But another motorbike was coming up the outside, which the guy who had flashed his lights hadn’t seen.
The motorbike hit the side of the woman’s car. She was very apologetic, but the guy on the motorbike was rather unhappy about it as he had a broken leg. I helped shift his bike to the side of the road. The guy who’d flashed his lights thought it was the biker’s fault and didn’t believe me when I said filtering on a motorbike (or bicycle) was legal in the UK.
The cops took my statement. The guy who flashed his lights had caused the crash but legally, it was her fault and not his.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Why am I not surprised at this? The lack of knowledge from lots of motorists is quite worrying. They obviously haven’t read their Highway Code. There’s plenty of info in there, as regards what is/isn’t allowed on the roads.
As a cyclist, I don’t filter, as I don’t trust motorists; hoping they’ve seen me is no good – I want to be 100% sure they have seen me.
IIRC there have been lots of
IIRC there have been lots of videos on this very site, over the years, showing near misses where a cyclist coming down the cycle lane next to a queue of traffic has very nearly been hit by someone turning right into a side road, and where members of this community (myself included) have proposed that someone in the queue had flashed the turning car, the driver of which had thought that meant it was safe to proceed rather than that the flasher was simply saying they wouldn’t move forward quite yet…
(sorry – that sentence got away from me a bit, there!)
brooksby wrote:
Hardy and Austen would have been proud…
OldRidgeback wrote:
I narrowly missed having a simlar incident filtering on a motorbike, where van 1 from local landscape firm was wanting to pull into their premesis flashed van 2 of same firm to exit, and van 2 driver of course didn’t consider the possibility of anyone filtering.
Luckily I passed in front of the van, but If I had been 1 second later it would have hit me and 3 seconds later I would have been into the side of the van.
We probably all have the
We probably all have the stories of cars flashing cross traffic through courtesy.
Mine happened here, single carriageway four laner. Traffic was held up at the lights and I was filtering down the left as middle filtering is tougher due to cars avoiding the central refuge a few metres behind. As I approached that bit the cars had started to move ahead so I thought the gap that had opened up was just a slow responding driver. as I hit the gap the turning car had just started moving but he didn’t respond at all to me coming across as too concerned to speed into the turn to avoid holding up the nice drivers who had let him through. So in the flash I saw the car and cleared the gap, he had also covered the gap between the central reservation and the marking the start of the bus stop side of the road. He missed my rear tire with his bumper by mm’s and I was in the road extensions side as an additional avoidance. If I didn’t have that he would have clipped me. I admit I was filtering too fast for my own safety and I’m more cautious there now but still.
This is what happens when
This is what happens when people try to be ‘polite’ (or lazy) the priority order fro this junction is fairly simple in the HC
1. the rider going straight through (no give ways)
2. the Van driver turning right (no give ways)
3. the van going straight on (over the giveways)
4. the car turning right
The only spannerin the works may be the timing of the arrival of the rider which may allow the big van to turn right first
But because the van driver decides to be polite (or is too lazy to turn correctly or the car has started to sweep the middle of the junction and make it too tight)
It’s so simple if idiots would just follow the rules (guidlines) set out for using the roads, maybe we should have them all written down in a wee book and test them before they are allowed to drive
I don’t think it’s clear that
I don’t think it’s clear that the van going straight on (over the giveways) has priority over the car turning right.
People take arrivals at
People take arrivals at junctions as an order but yes, does straight over the main road take precedence over turning right onto it? I can see arguments for both.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Strictly speaking, the instruction to any person – where it exists – is to give way. There is no instruction to take precedence. There is an inferred priority, not an implied priority. So somebody going straight ahead on the major road (into which people may turn from roads marked with give way signs/markings) has priority. Anybody on the major road who is turning would give way to an oncoming road user whose path they may cross.
After that, those on the roads marked with give way must give way to those already established on the major road. In its simplest form, if somebody is turning right and happens to do so before the opposing vehicle crosses their give way, the latter should give way. Prove that, though! The rule, for practical purposes, is that the right-turning vehicle needs to give way to the straight on vehicle.
The rule, for practical
The rule, for practical purposes, is that the right-turning vehicle needs to give way to the straight on vehicle.
But that is one of those “courtesy” rules isn’t it? The only thing I can find in the HC which specifically concerns crossroads is how to turn off the main road if both approaching vehicles are turning right. Like I said in some cases it is courtesy order on arriving at the junction. However if no decision is made there, I could argue that the vehicle turning right should have priority because it is entering a route that has priority and would be harder to join with other approaching vehicles speeds but is also joining the priority traffic road over the vehicle going straight on.
If you see the video again, it was this also indecision between those two drivers which made it more dangerous for the cyclist as they both clear the giveway markings together before the Van stops for a second and this sends the red car to turn more head on for the cyclist.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
No.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
No, both drivers need a gap in both directions to pass through the junction.
Drivers turning right are causing the conflict, they should wait. if both were going straight ahead neither would have to wait.
Although often what happens in practice is the driver whose side clears first emerges first and the other is then forced to wait.
GMBasix wrote:
It is more than implied in the Highway Code, it is plainly stated in Rule 181.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Rule 181 of the Highway Code states that, if turning right at a crossroads, you should give way to oncoming traffic following the road ahead. The clearest diagrams I have found are those in Advice for the Theory Test.
The word “should” is key here. It is not an inviolable order and, as the book says, there may be circumstances that dictate a different course of action.
My daughter, riding her horse, fell foul of a right-turning driver who crashed into her as she attempted to go straight ahead. Local police were not amused and it cost him a hefty fine, three points and the best part of a thousand quid in vets’ fees.
Quote:
The online version only has
So nothing about giving way and the diagrams only show the vehicles turning right from the main road onto the side roads.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
The online version only has
So nothing about giving way and the diagrams only show the vehicles turning right from the main road onto the side roads.
Sorry, sorry, sorry. That will teach me not to post my ill-found opinions after a 56 hour shift down the pit and a ninety mile cycle commute home for tea.
Try Rule 180 which tells traffic turning right to wait for a safe gap between oncoming vehicles.
I suspect that the van driver
I suspect that the van driver was being courteous and had flashed the red car to allow them to turn right first.
Tha’s my point Joeinpoole,
Tha’s my point Joeinpoole, being courteous to override an established hierarchcy seems to be nice but should actively be discouraged because it has to many unintended consequences
At the risk of being accused
At the risk of being accused for victim-blaming, the rider could have been a little better prepared for the junction and the vehicles there.
OK, so with two give-way junctions butting onto a through road they have every right to expect to be able to ride straight through without obstruction, but we all know that it’s unlikely to happen when we’re invisible (IE riding a bike) and the rider didn’t seem to slow, even when the van started nosing into the road – they just kept hammering along.
Again, for avoidance of doubt, the rider wasn’t to blame for poor driving but by at the same time they could have mitigated the poor driving to an extent by being a little more circumspect.
I hate shit drivers but I’d rather back off a bit, let them do their shit driving and carry on with my day safely even if they’re the ones at fault. Just saying!
MattieKempy wrote:
The drivers were d1cks, but as you point out from the rider’s point of view there might have been a comprehension that the situation in front of them was clearly confused, therefore potentially chaotic, and so not one that you would want to enter until the sources of risk had cleared. All that said with a nod to Also’s point below…
Captain Badger wrote:
I like your description of the situation as “confused”. It’s word I’ve used myself to describe similar situations. The more confused, the slower you should be going. I don’t care if it’s my “right of way”, I’m not going to crash my expensive bike and damage my delicate head just to prove the point.
If it had been me, I might
If it had been me, I might have been thinking about slowing down when the red car was seen just because of the conditions and with experience of drivers being dicks at junctions.
However by the time all three vehicles was seen and the actual “confusion” could be determined it was probably too late to do anything but avoid he collision in the wet. It doesn’t look on the video but it is about 3-4% decline approaching so cyclist was probably doing between 20-30mph. So 6-9m of reaction distance before even braking.
While I accept your
While I accept your observations surely the point here is that someone has had to take defensive action due to either bullying behaviour or incompetance. Neither should be encouraged and in future may lead to much more serious consquences if allowed to continue.
The most disappointing thing about this NMOTD is that the number plates could not be identified. What we need is an offordable camera that will pick up number plates in low light, has decent battery life and doesn’t make you look like a telly tubby when helmet mounted. If any one knows of one I would be very ineterested.
Since I have never worn a
Since I have never worn a plastic hat, I used these sunglasses with an HD camera in the nose bridge. zetronix.com
Tips on staying alive.
Tips on staying alive.
1: This is a visually complex scene. When arriving at a visually complex scene, slow things down if possible. Inexperienced riders tend to not slow, experienced riders will automatically slow. Slowing down gives you time to consider your options. Or limit the impact damage.
2: Most drivers make a decision and then stick with it, regardless of a new situation. So the drivers ahead at the junction, have had to make decisions. Chances are they saw the bike, but having already made their decisions, they continue with their plan and “hope ” it will be alright.
Re item 2. I’ve seen this so many times. I once was doing 40 mph down a hill, a car was edging out of his drive. I knew he hadn’t seen me, so prepared to avoid, he then looked me in the eye, I thought great, he’s seen me, but then he pulled out! I was amazed, being 14 yrs old and nimble I was able to avoid. It was strange, later it was clear he knew he did wrong, but it was like the driver was a passenger in a sequence of events, having ” commited ” to a planned manouvre, the decision for which was made before the high speed bike appeared in his vision.
So my lesson, even after eye contact some drivers will try to kill you.
I type this while recovering from head and other injuries, having been knocked out by driver who chose to run me down from behind. So I have a renewed interest in safety.
It was a policeman, who admited he didn’t like being overtaken by a bicycle! My first cycling serious injury in 40 + years. He did call the ambulance to his credit
P.S. I`m now a 100 % believer in cycle helmets. The helmet has massive permanent deformation from the crash.
I doubt covering 18m a second
I doubt covering 18m a second that the driver looked you in the eye. He may have been looking in your general direction but that is no guarantee of anything.
I don’t think any of us can do anything about a driver who decides to ram you off from behind. I assume he was prosecuted for dangerous driving.
hirsute wrote:
I’ve had that a few times. I never rely on them seeing me when they look at me.
There have been a couple that I genuinely believe they looked without seeing, even though staring me in the face.
Here’s one from yesterday
Here’s one from yesterday
I had to swerve right instead of going straight on. Was watching the driver all the time and they ‘looked’ at me.
hirsute wrote:
Exactly: the driver looking at you doesn’t mean that they actually saw you or registered that you existed.
There’ve been plenty of anecdotes and articles about that, on this site and elsewhere, IIRC.
Thanks, for that.
Thanks, for that.
I’ll have to do more reading up on safety.
Incredible, just yesterday!
Incredible, just yesterday!
Well, not incredible, not
Well, not incredible, not many days in the year where there is no incident, just whether today’s one matches today’s topics.
Which country are you in ?
Land of the rising sun!
Land of the rising sun!
Been cycling here 20 yrs, it’s always been joy, drivers are generally very courteous, bus drivers give loads of room.
The B roads are beautiful and smooth with so few cars, and in the mountains you can ride for hrs and maybe see one car every half an hr. I only worry about meeting a hungry bear.
Well sounds like he should be
Well sounds like he should be a sacked Policeman for assault with a deadly weapon if he rammed a cyclist from behind because “he didn’t like being overtaken by a bicycle”.
Agreed, and I think that’s
Agreed, and I think that’s maybe happening.
I replied to hirsute above, with a bit more detail.
But his colleagues looked appauled and embarassed. The police at scene made it very clear to my wife that I had done no wrong in the eyes of the law and the driver is fully respinsible for all my costs, injuries and any compensation needed.
Maybe true, them looking in
Maybe true, them looking in the eye verses in the general direction.
The helmet clearly was vital.
This didn’t happen in the UK, but essentially the prosecution starts monday on receipt of my medical records.
Stupidly at the time I minimised my injuries and bike damage, I refused to go to hospital in the ambulance, all I wanted was my morning espresso!
However the police at the scene were brilliant, they insisted I get my bike professionally checked for safety brfote riding again and send any medical records to them so they could prosecute
Andy533 wrote:
I type this while recovering from head and other injuries, having been knocked out by driver who chose to run me down from behind….— Andy533
Speedy recovery Andy, hope you’re back on your bike soon.
Vaptain Badger, thank you.
Captain Badger, thank you. Seems I’be been very lucky with my recovery. Already been on my shopping bike at the local park, taking it very easy.
Andy533 wrote:
That’s great to hear! have a great bank holiday!
Had similar this morning, on
Had similar this morning, on a big roundabout… I was on it, so had right of way. vacuous pudding-faced driver looked at me and pulled out anyway so I had to avoid her. Wasn’t even that busy.
4 road users meet at a
4 road users meet at a junction.
The cyclist going straight on the major road has priority over everyone.
Everyone has priority over the red car turning right at the give way.
Guess who goes first?
I’ve cycled on enough lanes
I’ve cycled on enough lanes in and around Devon and this scenario is all too familiar….
i learned the hard way that you need to approach these junctions assuming someone is likely to pull out… you may well be in the right, but for the sake of an injury free ride I’d always approach these junctions in ‘defensive’ mode
I’m not sure enough people
I’m not sure enough people adopt a ‘defensive’ mode while out on the road, and I mean all road users.
Yes! I totally agree. Just
Yes! I totally agree. Just because we have right of way doesn’t mean we ignore our own safety and choose to almost cause a collision. The rider’s ego need’s a reality check and he needs to accept that certain roads and junctions are hots pots for idotic behaviour. I know of several that seem to promote bad driving on my own route to and from work.
You really like to blame the
You really like to blame the cyclists and ascribe traits to them with no evidence
from earlier: “I rarely see any cars there, can’t believe this guy came across vehicles coming from all directions.”
“And as you say, it’s unusual enough to see a single motor vehicle at that crossroads – I don’t think I’ve seen two there at the same time, let alone three.”
Pogostickio wrote:
Clarkson – is that you?