Today’s Near Miss has already generated a fair bit of discussion online, mostly focusing on that old, commonly used, yet often misrepresented aspect of day-to-day cycling: filtering.
In the video below, Cork cyclist John, who regularly posts instances of bad driving on his Righttobikeit Twitter account, can be seen filtering past a line of slow-moving vehicles.
Another brown trouser moment. Indicates and turns at the same time. Glad not to have hit the deck. Close one though. @roadcc @sticky_bottle @theJeremyVine @IrishCycle pic.twitter.com/roQljdDE0L
— Righttobikeit❤️Ukraine (@righttobikeit) September 1, 2022
As he approaches the entrance to a filling station, however, a motorist begins to turn left into John’s path, having indicated their intentions less than a second before beginning the manoeuvre. Fortunately, the cyclist was able to brake in time, ensuring that the incident resulted in little more than a bent wing mirror.
“You can’t just put on your indicator and turn off the road like that, you’re supposed to check your mirrors,” John can be heard telling the motorist following the minor collision, as the driver simply replies, “Sorry lad”.
As in the UK, filtering is perfectly legal in Ireland. In 2012 a traffic law was amended to clarify that cyclists are permitted to overtake on the left when vehicles to the rider’s right are stationary or moving at a slower rate than the cyclist.
Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped a number Twitter users criticising the cyclist’s actions, prompting John to both clarify the legalities of filtering and defend his ability to successfully anticipate the driver’s manoeuvre:
I’m filtering on left which is legal. All traffic moving forward has priority over traffic leaving the lane. The driver should have indicated much earlier and checked his mirror before turning. There’s no bike lane btw
— Righttobikeit❤️Ukraine (@righttobikeit) September 1, 2022
Yes I am undertaking, it’s a slow moving line of traffic. It’s called filtering and it’s legal. All traffic moving forward has priority over traffic leaving the lane. He should have indicated earlier and checked his mirror
— Righttobikeit❤️Ukraine (@righttobikeit) September 1, 2022
I would be very cautious filtering on the left when approaching junctions or turn offs. Especially with gaps in traffic where motorists are going to start moving.
Don’t trust motorists to do the right thing.— CycleGaz™ (@cyclegaz) September 1, 2022
Another #cyclist who is a menace to himself and others and needs to learn to #Cycle https://t.co/IxT6IUD6bv
— Gerald Quinlan (@QuinlanQuinlan) September 2, 2022
I did anticipate which is why I stopped in the shortest possible time
— Righttobikeit❤️Ukraine (@righttobikeit) September 2, 2022
I’m doing 23/24kph. Most filtering is done at about 1 meter or less. It’s cars passing have to give 1m not the other way around. What’s dangerous is leaving the lane without checking your mirrors
— Righttobikeit❤️Ukraine (@righttobikeit) September 1, 2022
Do you understand basic physics? My mass has no possible chance of shifting a 2 tonne car let alone knock it over. The other way around….
— Righttobikeit❤️Ukraine (@righttobikeit) September 1, 2022
What do you think?
> 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
54 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 819: Filtering cyclist left-hooked by late-indicating driver”
Boiled down: Cyclist not
Boiled down: Cyclist not following highway code nearly taken out by driver not following highway code. Cycling like that it’s only a matter of time before the cyclist becomes a stain on the tarmac.
Cyclist not following Highway
Cyclist not following Highway Code? (Might be correct as Irish HC does have changes). Although he does seem to be doing faster speeds then I would there with the amount of obvious turn offs. (Two filling stations in a row, was the second one cheaper?)
I didn’t realise it was in
I didn’t realise it was in Cork and assumed UK, where rule 67 applies and is very much not being followed in this short clip.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
HC 67 says nothing about filtering with cars, only about taking care when riding up the left of large vehicles. Screenshot below for info.
It’s in Cork.
Agree with the sentiment.
However, it’s in Cork.
Do they use the UK Highway Code?
Good point about being in
Good point about being in Cork. I don’t know if highway code is relevant in that instance.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
No, Eire has its own “Rules of the Road” document, and as far as I know this cyclist didn’t break them.
“The updated code confirms
“The updated code confirms that people cycling may pass slower-moving or stationary traffic on their right or left.”
“The code clarifies that when people cycling are going straight ahead at a junction, they have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of a side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022
The code also states that
The code also states that cyclists shouldn’t ride on the inside of vehicles slowing down or indicating to turn left. The car was doing both (indicating and slowing down) before the cyclist started to pass on the left. You can tell this because you can see an indicator flash in the video. If the cyclist had been traveling at a sensible speed they would have been able to take appropriate action (stopping).
The incident occurred in the
The incident occurred in the Republic of Ireland. I’m not sure that they have updated their own HC. The current one though does have very well laid out guidance for motorists interacting with cyclists. My ch clearer than our own HC.
The driver is 100% in the
The driver is 100% in the wrong as they obviously did not check their mirrors and indicated too late for the turning they were making.
Assuming that Irish Rules of the Road and laws are similar to UK then I would say the cyclist is entitled – as in “has a legal right” in this case he has a legal right to filter and is not breaking any laws or guidance.
That said, as others have stated on here before being right is little compensation when in the hospital, I would have been more cautious filtering in that situation – either going out to the right or slowing my approach – as there are too many drivers that are incompetent enough to pull stunts like the one above.
Perhaps the next iterarion of HC should spell out when filtering is legal (i.e traffic has to be moving below a certain speed) and that filtering traffic should not exceed the speed of the moving traffic by more than 5~10 mph
Rough fag packet maths on car
Rough fag packet maths on car and bike covering the 17m exit of the station shows 13mph for car (before brake lights came on) and 20mph for bike. Lots of error potential of course and just using timer on video and having to guestimate front of car location.
Perhaps the next iterarion of
Perhaps the next iterarion of HC should spell out when filtering is legal
What the HC states is irrelevant because the police ignore it anyway- all the evidence on this site is that what really counts is what the police think is the law- often markedly different from the real law. Almost all proven incidents founder at the police/ OpSnap stage where the police dream up stupid reasons for blaming the cyclist, and when they can’t think of any, they just bin the evidence (admittedly, I’m referring to Lancashire Constabulary here) and don’t respond. You have seen this with the blaming of the cyclist for annoying the driver by going to the front of the queue, thereby ‘putting himself in danger’. How was this my fault? (yes, I know you’ve seen it often before!). The police couldn’t think of anything either, so they refused to respond. It’s now 8 weeks since I informed the PCC of the complete absence of police response to incidents like this, including the video etc., after the PCC made a public announcement that people dissatisfied with the police response should write to them. No response from the PCC- and this is a dead easy case: there is nothing the police can say other than ‘we didn’t do anything at all about any of these cases’.
Yep 100% driver at fault for
Yep 100% driver at fault for not looking, but not a gap I would have gone for. Too much risk of that happening or a right-turning vehicle cutting across from the opposite direction.
Cyclist might have been
Cyclist might have been keeping an eye for right turning vehicle, hence missing the .5 seconds of indicator he was given that the car wanted slightly cheaper fuel.
Not really the place you want
Not really the place you want to filter with 2 petrol stations.
Hazard awareness would mean not really taking that line – looks to have been safer to be on the right.
Although having seen a few other videos, the standard of driving over there looks poor and the garda show very little interest. With one cyclist they decided they didn’t want any submissions from him so they made something up about not signalling and threatened to charge him. Since the camera was in front of his arms there is no way they had any idea of his signals.
Motorists drive as if they
Motorists drive as if they are the only legitimate road users. This one did not need to check his mirror because obviously no other vehicle could possibly be coming.
It would be nice if drivers
It would be nice if drivers obeyed the rules of the road but car park, filling stations and sometimes driveways are just magnets for them and their brain switches off. Most of my filtering of crawling traffic for that reason is on the right.
Look at it from the driver’s
Look at it from the driver’s perspective. They are in backed up traffic. There are two filling stations – which has the best price? It seems to me that the driver has dropped back as they are deciding which one to go to, has decided on the second and signals, they then drift to the left as they go for the rather undefined entrance of the second station – the signal isn’t especially late in that context, they haven’t made their exit, the road seems a little undefined at that point. I’d suggest most of us have made a late decision at some point, for example on unfamiliar roads or in heavy traffic so passing just before a turning is unwise.
From the cyclists perspective he is riding fast. There is something odd about the queue, why is the car in front not keeping pace? I don’t count riding at that speed as filtering, in my book filtering is something done with stationary or near stationary traffic at low speed – as soon as traffic is much above walking pace, too much can change in a built up area.
Generally, riding at your own pace without consideration to events around you are going to have a problem like this, and you cannot lean on drivers being perfect – as we know how poor drivers can be.
I was going to keep out of
I was going to keep out of this discussion until I read your reply, Ian.
I would suggest that this is a reasonably fair summation; a driver trying to cope with sensory overload – and not just of their own doing either.
True, their driving is potentially distracted by the choice of filling stations (and what kind of twat authorises two filling stations opposite each other?) … and if most of you looked at yourself impartiality, you would agree that if you needed fuel, you’d be looking at *both* tower signs (hence the larger gap).
For my ha’pennies worth, the rider is way too fast for the conditions – especially given that he is on the inside. Their argument that they were only doing 23/24kmh doesn’t work for me . .. 23/24 kmh is many riders (myself included) top speed on the flat.
For me, the rider is not riding to the conditions and is failing to anticipate the actions of other road users in these conditions.
I would think that if this video was submitted to the Police, it would likely be dismissed as the rider has put themselves in this situation.
I also think that if there had been a collision requiring an insurance claim, and awarded damages to the cyclist would be seriously reduced as their speed would be considered contributory negligence.
The driver is not excused … they clearly have failed in their checks “mirror signal manoeuvre “; but the cyclist has also failed themselves in poor situation awareness and anticipation of other road users mistakes.
IanMSpencer wrote:
I’ve been in a similar (but different) situation. I was the responsible adult accompanying a learner driver. Approaching a roundabout learner belatedly realises they need the inside lane and I grip my seat and scream at them as they drift across. “You can’t just do that, you [i]have [/i] to look first, you don’t know if there’s anyone on your inside.”
So, is it reasonable in this video for the driver to assume there was no need to check his mirrors? The answer depends on what road users populate your working assumptions. If you exclude cyclists then it’s fair to say the driver would perceive that they had already seen that nothing was there, and there was nothing else to look for. I think this is why so often we hear “the cyclist came out of nowhere”, or that “cyclists should make themselves visible.”
IanMSpencer wrote:
I’d agree with you there, but the problem is, the point where filtering becomes undertaking is not really formally defined. The only thing that matters is whether a court thinks the driving/riding was careless.
I’d like to see a bit more footage as to the extent of the queuing traffic. Was this a long line of slow vehicles (i.e. was filtering really necessary or to be expected)? Did the car overtake the cyclist shortly before this incident (i.e. the driver knew a bike could be catching them up)?
HoarseMann wrote:
I’d agree with you there, but the problem is, the point where filtering becomes undertaking is not really formally defined. The only thing that matters is whether a court thinks the driving/riding was careless.
I’d like to see a bit more footage as to the extent of the queuing traffic. Was this a long line of slow vehicles (i.e. was filtering really necessary or to be expected)? Did the car overtake the cyclist shortly before this incident (i.e. the driver knew a bike could be catching them up)?ā IanMSpencer
In which case you are also debating whether a driver – irrespective of other circumstances – should check their surroundings before leaving their lane, and indicate in time enough to alert any others they had nevertheless failed to see themselves. This driver did neither, they proceeded on a working assumption that there was nothing there, reasonable enough if you are thinking only in terms of other motor vehicles.
Sriracha wrote:
That’s not up for debate, the motorist clearly should have checked before turning.
I just think that filtering is not properly defined in the highway code. If you look at motorbikes, they will filter with a lot more speed than the cyclist does here.
HoarseMann wrote:
Yes, I do try and frame much of what I say as my opinion when I can’t back it up!
There is not a right to filter, each pass is a road user passing from behind and therefore, regardless of HWC, there is a requirement on the filterer, whether bike or motorbike, to assess the safety of each individual pass, and you do not filter unless it is safe to do so, just as there is a requirement on the motorist to make sure any manouvre he makes is safe.
The red flag here was lots of opportunities for cars to do something other than go straight on, so any cyclist should be filtering with extra care. I think there is a consensus in the comments that this was not the case, much as there is a consensus that the driver fell below the standard expected of them, much as there is a consensus that two wrongs don’t make a right
Quote:
Further up the road, you can see stationary traffic and the next car forward applying brakes, (probably to leave a gap to let the car exiting the petrol station out). I suspect fast cyclist came upon the section of the queue that was caterpillaring forward solely going on the cars not doing much more then 15mph. One of those decisions places on do you stop filtering and join the flow or stay filtering, and as he is nippy, he decided to stay filtering.
my view is always filter with
my view is always filter with the expectation of that happening in traffic moving like that,its bad that it happened, but…predictable.
This is a 50, 50.
This is a 50, 50.
Filtering (in the UK) should be done on the right side of the vehicle.
Also. The gap narrows as the cyclist approaches. Risky pass! I like it.
Filtering (in the UK) should
I’m not sure that’s correct. I call filtering on the right “overtaking”!
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
According to the Highway Code, filtering by cyclists in slow moving motor traffic can be legitimately done on either side of the vehicle and it expresses no preference as to which is more appropriate.
The links I sent to Jim about
The links I sent to Jim about filtering for 818 (ignored because they were from cycling organisations though) do state either side, but right hand side is better due to drivers being more ready for right hand side then left etc. Also need to be aware of cars sudden movements, left hooks or spaces left for turning traffic from the right.. However as with everything, it depends what suits the situation at the time.
better for whom ? I dont like
better for whom ? I dont like filtering RHS you end up like with 818 having to hope someone isnt fully lined up if things start getting too close which you can never anticipate or predict in advance. So I always favour LHS filters unless Im blocked but I proceed purely on the basis no one ahead of me knows Im there, I can moan & complain about those who might have overtaken me once and then forgotten I was still there. But Im not riding up side any vehicle left or right who has the opportunity to turn across me without being damn sure Im not in harms way.
“Better” was probably the
“Better” was probably the wrong words. Recommended if possible is probably more appropriate as they reckon drivers would be more likely to look for overtakes on the right, cars in the other lane turning right are more noticeable AND if there is no oncoming traffic, you can give more room. Of course there is still vehicles turning right out of junctions (and people crossing) who would be less likely to be looking that side for people travelling.
For my own experiences, I just take the appropriate side I feel more safer on depending on road knowledge, conditions and which bike I’m on. So will filter one road pretty much purely on the right for a distance, then cut through to the left at a corner just before the lights, first because of a central refuge but also because 90% of the traffic is turning right at the lights so they will be more towards that side of the lane leaving a large section at the left.
We (cyclists) at least need
We (cyclists) at least need to try to apply a credible standard. The poster is exceptionally argumentative on twitter but they weren’t filtering. To put arguments about the effectiveness of painted murderstrips to one side, there was no bike lane so he was undertaking the vehicle in the same lane. ‘Filtering’ is moving between lanes in stationary or slowing moving vehicles. He can argue all he likes, he wasn’t filtering and frankly Road.cc happily describing this as ‘filtering’ is the sort of disingenuous argument that we complain about when we see it in the anti-cycling media . There was no murderstrip, so not really in a ‘lane’ either. He was undertaking a car in the same lane, at speed, beside exits and entrances to the road, and he got caught out. Yes, the car indicated very late, but most do. Sometimes the rider does fuck up too, and the rider fucked up here. Shouldn’t have been in that position relative to the driver, in that location, at that speed and we shouldn’t set this bar for being offended by driver behaviour.
Nope.
Nope.
espressodan wrote:
Doesn’t really matter what you want to call it, the Highway Code specifically warns drivers to look out for cyclists (and motorcyclists) passing them on either side and states NOT to cut across in front of them. At the speed the rider was going, it cannot even be argued that the rider would be in the driver’s blind spot.
This happened in the Republic
This happened in the Republic of Ireland. What the highway code says is irrelevant.
Just the same thing happened
Just the same thing happened to me yesterday…
He was for my liking going a
He was for my liking going a bit too quick . He may have perfectly in the right, but is increasing his chance’s of going over a bonnet from a car coming across his path. Slow down, filter on the right side wherever possible.
Whilst I can see the merit of
Whilst I can see the merit of posting marginal cases to promote debate amongst sensible people, that video has found its way onto thesun.co.uk with the usual “who’s in the wrong?” headline. Which means some of the drivers I’m about to encounter when I roll out for an hour’s worth of wishing I was thinner and fitter will have seen it and be looking for an excuse to punish pass someone. Thanks for that.
There are so many better videos of drivers behaving terribly towards cyclists doing nothing more than having the temerity to ride along a quiet road. Why not use those instead?
panda wrote:
You would acknowledge that that is the fault of the Sun and the drivers though, wouldn’t you? Or is it now incumbent upon cyclists to self-censor every social media post in case the gutter press use it to stir up hatred amongst the Gammonati? I can guarantee that if every cyclist deleted every single social media post they’ve ever made the press would simply switch to car dashcam footage of cyclists instead.
There is no doubt in my mind
There is no doubt in my mind that the motorist is in the wrong, in fact had it been in the UK this situation is specifically covered in the highway code rule 182 :
“Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.”
The only discusson is about whether we as cyclists have some reponsibility to alter our behaviour to accomodate poor driving. In this case I think most of us would have avoided a collision but that doesn’t make the driver right.
It’s interesting that we are expected to cycle assuming that drivers will make mistakes but motorists don’t have the same responsibility to cyclists eg NMOTD 818. I would have thought it should be the other way round based on the “higherarchy of road users”.
panda wrote:
I think we need to hold drivers accountable for their own actions and not defer blame to whichever Murdoch rag is spreading divisive hate this time. Road.cc is AFAIK going to publish any cyclist’s video as it’s a quick and easy way for them to make content (and some of them get loads of comments and presumably page views), so it’s down to each submitter as to whether it’s worth submitting or not (I don’t bother if I think it’s a typical incident).
There is never a decent excuse for a coward’s/punishment pass, so blame the individual that does it – preferably by recording it and submitting it to the police. Similarly, blame Murdoch for the atrocious reporting in his rags. (Maybe blame Road.cc for the poor proof-reading though it does seem much better than it used to be).
Right, I’ve been cycling now
Right, I’ve been cycling now and I feel better. Let me try that again. What is the outcome you want to achieve, and what is the best way to achieve it?
I would argue there are two outcomes:
1. Drivers check their mirrors and blindspots before turning (yes, I know they should do this)
2. It becomes mandatory that anyone driving a car manufactured after 202X has to ignore an audible alarm alerting them to something moving on the side of the vehicle they are turning the wheel in.
So what’s the best approach? Engage rather than enrage the silent majority. Find a video where the driver is in a queue of traffic the they leave a gap and wave through a driver turning right from the opposite direction and a cyclist filtering unequivacally sensibly (ideally on a murderstrip) goes over the bonnet. Tell the audience that both drivers were traumatised and that the cyclist couldn’t take their grandchildren to the park that afternoon. Personalise it. Make the viewer think “crikey, that could have been me in that car”.
What you’ve done here is post a video where the driver is in the wrong but leaves room for “whataboutery” and distracts from the “check your mirror you sensbible person you” message, creating instead an argument about where the filtering / undertaking boundary is.
I’m not saying the driver did not cause that. I’m not saying that. I am saying that if there was injury, a jury of the drivers peers will attribute some blame to the cyclist. If you want to change that outcome, post better illlustrative videos on NMotD and engage the silent majority by being measured and reasonable.
If you want to mash your keyboards into the void of the road.cc forum, knock yourselves out; but if you want to win a popularity contest against the motoring lobby, you need to change your stance a bit. Flame away.
panda wrote:
The way to win a popularity contest against the motoring lobby is to either spend a LOT of money to re-influence politicians or to educate the population that car-oriented society is not the only choice. Posting videos on Road.cc is not going to make any realistic difference, but it does allow us to discuss some finer points of traffic laws and also innoculate us against common driving errors.
Panda, if you’d been hit by a
Panda, if you’d been hit by a sober motorist while on your ride today, entirely their fault of course, and something had to go in front of a jury, either criminal or not, most of that jury will be drivers and not cyclists and many of those will be blaming you just for daring to be using the roads.
panda wrote:
I am afraid that a video showing that would not influence many drivers at all, as it would only be seen by readers of road.cc; the Mail, Sun et al would have no interest in showing an unequivocal driver fault video (unless maybe one of the drivers was an asylum seeker so they could run a “how can he afford a car” story). Additionally, if their comments sections on bike/car collision stories are anything to go by, a cyclist could have been using Zwift in their own living room when a car crashed through the wall and hit them and it’d still be a ratio of 10:1 “The lycra lout put himself in harm’s way, tough.”
That is not to say I think your idea has no merit, just that I very much doubt it would ever see the light of day or be received the way you would like if it did.
panda wrote:
You are incredibly hopeful that posting on road.cc is going to achieve that.
It’s only a body such as cycling uk that can might make small inroads.
There needs to be a political will to change things to move away from a driver centric society.
It is a tough one, especially
It is a tough one, especially as “news”papers like the Sun, Mail and others do have an agenda when asking “who is at fault”?
Recent ones have included the group of cyclists in their own lane who, whilst still in their own lane, moved to over take a stationary vehicle and got close driven at by on oncoming vehicle who crossed their own side of the lines for no reason.
The cyclists who were close passed at speed by a farm vehicle on single track who decided the rugged tyres and 4wd meant he had to stay on tarmac.
The driver who reversed over the dog because he wanted to reverse at speed back to a cyclist who shouted “woah” as he thought the car was too fast for the conditions and now enough space was given.
The driver who close passed a cyclist coming out of a welsh village and was incensed because he had never been caught driving badly before that.
Three of those was dealt with by the laws of the land (you could argue the fourth one was as well being as the Police decided a driver revesring at speed, forcing another vehicle of the road and killing a defenseless animal is not anthing they need to be bothered about ’cause cyclist shouted “watch out”)
So if those reasonably clear cut incidents provoked a “who is at fault” and comments below blaming the cyclist because they “were on the road without insurance, tax and reg plates and I once saw one go through a red light”, I don’t think we need to worry on the perceptions of one like the above.
I’m confused by this thread I
I’m confused by this thread I was told
” I’m afraid to say you will find very little tolerance in this echo chamber for any view other than “two wheels good, four wheels bad” Any sugestion are ruthlessy quashed “
I can only assume someone has hacked the site and modified the comments here.
hirsute wrote:
It’s almost as though people who don’t actually have usernames saying that they hate cyclists and/or who don’t begin their posting history with dozens of posts extolling the virtues of car usage and saying what an appalling entitled bunch cyclists are, or trolling irrelevant political agendas, actually get a respectful fair hearing, isn’t it? Odd that.
I get the feeling that our
I get the feeling that our little precious space has been “discovered”.
ktache wrote:
Shit! We’ve been rumbled
As John is clearly a capable
As John is clearly a capable cyclist I think he should also be capable of overtaking stationary cars on the outside. If there is no cycle lane then only overtake on the inside, if the traffic is stopped.