Near Miss of the Day 107: Driver pulls out on cyclist using cycle lane designed to improve rider safety (includes swearing)

jlebrech wrote:

no need for cycle lanes, just make pavements smaller and not have them raised.

Alternatively, we could copy the European cities that have put time and effort into effective cycle infrastructure and learn from them.

Or, we could listen to  you.

madcarew wrote:

Clearly, legally the lady is in the wrong. However, the cyclist is doing himself, and us no favours. As others have pointed out, (and were doing so in the video of teens swerving at cars) when there is an impending hazard, one slows down to ensure you have ample opportunity to stop if necessary. Within the environment the lady's driving was not unexpected (being in front of the broken lines arguably puts her in the active traffic flow already). We, as a group, are consistently saying that motorists should be a little less impatient, our presence on the road is only going to cost them a few seconds at worst. This cyclist should apply that to his own ethos and act with courtesy and consideration to other road users. The exact same outcome (riding around the front of the car to re-join his lane) could have been achieved with probably less than a second's time loss, and with a considerable reduction in vitriol if he had just slowed down a little earlier. As for calling him the 'victim', that is simply ridiculous. Arguably the lady, intimidated and abused, is the only victim in this exchange.

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

He needs to slow for the traffic conditions, not the car specifically. That’s the same if you’re a cyclist or a motorist. Driving at speed in stationary traffic is unwise, especially up the left.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

He needs to slow for the traffic conditions, not the car specifically. That’s the same if you’re a cyclist or a motorist. Driving at speed in stationary traffic is unwise, especially up the left.

Isn't that what the cycle lane is designed for?

I don't understand people criticising the cyclist for going too fast. He completely avoided the motorist doing an illegal pull-out (see rule 172) so therefore he wasn't going too fast for the conditions. It seems to me as though he was going at exactly the right speed for the conditions and his hazard avoidance was similarly spot-on.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

He needs to slow for the traffic conditions, not the car specifically. That’s the same if you’re a cyclist or a motorist. Driving at speed in stationary traffic is unwise, especially up the left.

He was cycling in the cycle lane which did not have stationary traffic (at least until the driver blocked it with their car). It's wise to be especially careful when close to slow/stationary cars as frustrated drivers do all kinds of random maneouvres without the usual mirror/indicate/mirror/maneouvre and as you can see from this video, the cyclist was able to safely deal with a careless and dangerous driver.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

He needs to slow for the traffic conditions, not the car specifically. That’s the same if you’re a cyclist or a motorist. Driving at speed in stationary traffic is unwise, especially up the left.

He was cycling in the cycle lane which did not have stationary traffic (at least until the driver blocked it with their car). It's wise to be especially careful when close to slow/stationary cars as frustrated drivers do all kinds of random maneouvres without the usual mirror/indicate/mirror/maneouvre and as you can see from this video, the cyclist was able to safely deal with a careless and dangerous driver.

Doesn’t matter if there’s a cycle lane. You ride/drive to the conditions. A cycle lane is just a dedicated area of the road which affords a cyclist space. It doesn’t absent the cyclist from due care and attention to other road users.

Moving quickly in slow moving traffic means that you are likely to move into someone’s space before they know you are upon them. It doesn’t necessarily mean that when they began their manoeuvre it didn’t appear to be safe to do so.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

He needs to slow for the traffic conditions, not the car specifically. That’s the same if you’re a cyclist or a motorist. Driving at speed in stationary traffic is unwise, especially up the left.

He was cycling in the cycle lane which did not have stationary traffic (at least until the driver blocked it with their car). It's wise to be especially careful when close to slow/stationary cars as frustrated drivers do all kinds of random maneouvres without the usual mirror/indicate/mirror/maneouvre and as you can see from this video, the cyclist was able to safely deal with a careless and dangerous driver.

Doesn’t matter if there’s a cycle lane. You ride/drive to the conditions. A cycle lane is just a dedicated area of the road which affords a cyclist space. It doesn’t absent the cyclist from due care and attention to other road users.

Moving quickly in slow moving traffic means that you are likely to move into someone’s space before they know you are upon them. It doesn’t necessarily mean that when they began their manoeuvre it didn’t appear to be safe to do so.

Huh?

You seem to imply that the cyclist was recklessly endangering the poor innocent car driver by going at such a terrific speed that not only was the cyclist unable to slow/stop/avoid the car, but also that there was no possible way that the car driver could have spotted such a fast moving object.

Firstly, the cyclist was able to stop in time and thus wasn't cycling too fast for the conditions.

Secondly, when pulling out, drivers MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction. It's no good saying that some of the traffic was stationary, thus there's no need to check the cycle lane. It is obviously dangerous to pull out and force traffic to slow/stop/avoid your car.

I can understand cyclists looking at this and thinking "that looks a bit quick", but it's always a trade off between how fast you travel and safe you are. You might want to cycle at 5mph in those conditions and someone else might want to cycle at 20mph in the same conditions. The ultimate test of competency is to be able to avoid a sudden hazard - such as a car driver carelessly pulling out to block the cycle lane.

I don't understand these people criticising the cyclist. Do you really worship cars that much?

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

Doesn't the Highway Code say something about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear? 

Griff500 wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

Doesn't the Highway Code say something about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear? 

The cycle lane was clear up until the point that the driver suddenly pulled out and created a hazard.

I think you're referring to Rule 126 which is a recommendation rather than a legal obligation:

Quote:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

Doesn't the Highway Code say something about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear? 

The cycle lane was clear up until the point that the driver suddenly pulled out and created a hazard.

I think you're referring to Rule 126 which is a recommendation rather than a legal obligation:

Quote:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops.

The point at which the car pulled out was just before the bike lane vanishes. After that it's pedestrians on a pavement, a bus stop, a row of roughly stationary cars and a small gap between the last two. The cyclist didn't appear to moderate his speed as he approached a gap in the traffic with a car already on the edge of the cycle lane. These should have been red flags to anyone with an iota of hazard perception IMO. No-one is claiming he should have stopped, nor that the car was OK to pull out, but it would go along with common sense and road usage advice to slow given those conditions. We also don't know if the car that pulled out was in motion or not just before the video starts.

fukawitribe wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

Doesn't the Highway Code say something about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear? 

The cycle lane was clear up until the point that the driver suddenly pulled out and created a hazard.

I think you're referring to Rule 126 which is a recommendation rather than a legal obligation:

Quote:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops.

The point at which the car pulled out was just before the bike lane vanishes. After that it's pedestrians on a pavement, a bus stop, a row of roughly stationary cars and a small gap between the last two. The cyclist didn't appear to moderate his speed as he approached a gap in the traffic with a car already on the edge of the cycle lane. These should have been red flags to anyone with an iota of hazard perception IMO. No-one is claiming he should have stopped, nor that the car was OK to pull out, but it would go along with common sense and road usage advice to slow given those conditions. We also don't know if the car that pulled out was in motion or not just before the video starts.

It is completely irrelevant what was beyond the point at which the cycle lane vanished. The cyclist managed to stop for the driver who pulled out illegally in front of him so could obviously have adjusted his speed as appropriate. Are you suggesting that every cyclist and every motorist should slow down for every vehicle waiting at a T junction because it is a "red flag"? That is ridiculous. It simply doesn't happen.  Perhaps we should cycle such that when we have priority we give way to motorists like a primary school child might do. Perhaps everyone with priority should give way to everyone who doesn't have priority so no one could ever be victim-blamed. But then those without priority who now have priority should of course give way to those with priority who now don't have priority so really no one should drive or cycle anywhere. It's bad enough that most people are too scared to use a bicycle on the roads precisely because of driving like this but to blame the victim really is extraordinarily perverse.

Fifth Gear wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

hawkinyspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

Doesn't the Highway Code say something about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear? 

The cycle lane was clear up until the point that the driver suddenly pulled out and created a hazard.

I think you're referring to Rule 126 which is a recommendation rather than a legal obligation:

Quote:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops.

The point at which the car pulled out was just before the bike lane vanishes. After that it's pedestrians on a pavement, a bus stop, a row of roughly stationary cars and a small gap between the last two. The cyclist didn't appear to moderate his speed as he approached a gap in the traffic with a car already on the edge of the cycle lane. These should have been red flags to anyone with an iota of hazard perception IMO. No-one is claiming he should have stopped, nor that the car was OK to pull out, but it would go along with common sense and road usage advice to slow given those conditions. We also don't know if the car that pulled out was in motion or not just before the video starts.

It is completely irrelevant what was beyond the point at which the cycle lane vanished. The cyclist managed to stop for the driver who pulled out illegally in front of him so could obviously have adjusted his speed as appropriate. Are you suggesting that every cyclist and every motorist should slow down for every vehicle waiting at a T junction because it is a "red flag"? That is ridiculous. It simply doesn't happen.  Perhaps we should cycle such that when we have priority we give way to motorists like a primary school child might do. Perhaps everyone with priority should give way to everyone who doesn't have priority so no one could ever be victim-blamed. But then those without priority who now have priority should of course give way to those with priority who now don't have priority so really no one should drive or cycle anywhere. It's bad enough that most people are too scared to use a bicycle on the roads precisely because of driving like this but to blame the victim really is extraordinarily perverse.

So what you are saying is that approaching the end of the cycle lane, and approaching a junction with a car waiting to pull out, and a junction at which it is likely that an oncoming vehicle whose vision is obscured by the stationry traffic might turn right across your path, it is not necessary to consider, and mitigate the risk by moderating your speed? Jeez!

Let me give you an analogy: Young drivers are involved in more accidents, therefore at a superficial level it is often assumed that they cause them all. But stats also show that young drivers are also involved in more no fault accidents, because they fail to assess, and mitigate risk. Just like the rider in the video, who faced multiple risks (see above) and ploughed on regardless. Ok, the driver was a dick, but the cyclist gets no medals here. 

Griff500 wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

hawkinyspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

He shouldn't have had to slow for that driver at all but how could he have slowed down a little earlier? It is a wide angle camera. He only had 2 seconds to react.

Doesn't the Highway Code say something about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear? 

The cycle lane was clear up until the point that the driver suddenly pulled out and created a hazard.

I think you're referring to Rule 126 which is a recommendation rather than a legal obligation:

Quote:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops.

The point at which the car pulled out was just before the bike lane vanishes. After that it's pedestrians on a pavement, a bus stop, a row of roughly stationary cars and a small gap between the last two. The cyclist didn't appear to moderate his speed as he approached a gap in the traffic with a car already on the edge of the cycle lane. These should have been red flags to anyone with an iota of hazard perception IMO. No-one is claiming he should have stopped, nor that the car was OK to pull out, but it would go along with common sense and road usage advice to slow given those conditions. We also don't know if the car that pulled out was in motion or not just before the video starts.

It is completely irrelevant what was beyond the point at which the cycle lane vanished. The cyclist managed to stop for the driver who pulled out illegally in front of him so could obviously have adjusted his speed as appropriate. Are you suggesting that every cyclist and every motorist should slow down for every vehicle waiting at a T junction because it is a "red flag"? That is ridiculous. It simply doesn't happen.  Perhaps we should cycle such that when we have priority we give way to motorists like a primary school child might do. Perhaps everyone with priority should give way to everyone who doesn't have priority so no one could ever be victim-blamed. But then those without priority who now have priority should of course give way to those with priority who now don't have priority so really no one should drive or cycle anywhere. It's bad enough that most people are too scared to use a bicycle on the roads precisely because of driving like this but to blame the victim really is extraordinarily perverse.

So what you are saying is that approaching the end of the cycle lane, and approaching a junction with a car waiting to pull out, and a junction at which it is likely that an oncoming vehicle whose vision is obscured by the stationry traffic might turn right across your path, it is not necessary to consider, and mitigate the risk by moderating your speed? Jeez!

Let me give you an analogy: Young drivers are involved in more accidents, therefore at a superficial level it is often assumed that they cause them all. But stats also show that young drivers are also involved in more no fault accidents, because they fail to assess, and mitigate risk. Just like the rider in the video, who faced multiple risks (see above) and ploughed on regardless. Ok, the driver was a dick, but the cyclist gets no medals here. 

Just how fast do you think the cyclist was going? Despite the fact the driver pulled out  unexpectedly he managed to avoid a collision and stop within about 2 seconds. All the evidence shows the cyclist performed well. I can only imagine these comments come from people who have never used a cycle camera themselves and so cannot interpret the video footage realistically. It is very easy to sit back in your chair and pretend you could have done better. Victim-blaming is the easiest game in the world.

Why don't you and all the other victim-blamers get your own cycle cameras and send the videos to Roadcc so we all get the benefit of your tutorials? And of course you will never have any close calls and no one will ever criticise your cycling. Try it and see how that works out for you.

Fifth Gear wrote:

Just amazing that people, most of whom are cyclists I assume, are criticising the victim here. The driver failed to give way to a cyclist who had priority.

I don't think there's much of a debate that the driver shouldn't have pulled out as they did. Do you think the 'victim' could have done anything different ? Personally I think his hazard perception appears very poor and his speed looks higher than might be appropriate - especially as that cycle lane he's in turns into a bus-stop just the other side of the car that's pulling out, which puts him between that and the stationary line of cars or into where the people are waiting with no indication he's starting to slow down. We also don't have footage prior to the car being positioned over the white-lines so it's not entirely clear what the full sequence of events might have been - may not have made any difference but i'd be interested to see. You may well consider he behaved impeccably obviously. That would worry me though.

fukawitribe wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

Just amazing that people, most of whom are cyclists I assume, are criticising the victim here. The driver failed to give way to a cyclist who had priority.

I don't think there's much of a debate that the driver shouldn't have pulled out as they did. Do you think the 'victim' could have done anything different ? Personally I think his hazard perception appears very poor and his speed looks higher than might be appropriate - especially as that cycle lane he's in turns into a bus-stop just the other side of the car that's pulling out, which puts him between that and the stationary line of cars or into where the people are waiting with no indication he's starting to slow down. We also don't have footage prior to the car being positioned over the white-lines so it's not entirely clear what the full sequence of events might have been - may not have made any difference but i'd be interested to see. You may well consider he behaved impeccably obviously. That would worry me though.

Fukawitribe - nicely explained. No-one is saying that the motorist wasn't in the wrong. Just that the cyclist apparently didn't deal with the unfolding situation very well. In the text he says that 'this sort of thing happens all the time'. So why was the car pulling out such a surprise to him? Right from the start of the footage the car is already blocking the cycle lane and an obvious gap is forming in front of the black car. Poor driving, poor cycling.
He should have vent his spleen on the local council and not the motorist. Frustration?

zero_trooper wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

Just amazing that people, most of whom are cyclists I assume, are criticising the victim here. The driver failed to give way to a cyclist who had priority.

I don't think there's much of a debate that the driver shouldn't have pulled out as they did. Do you think the 'victim' could have done anything different ? Personally I think his hazard perception appears very poor and his speed looks higher than might be appropriate - especially as that cycle lane he's in turns into a bus-stop just the other side of the car that's pulling out, which puts him between that and the stationary line of cars or into where the people are waiting with no indication he's starting to slow down. We also don't have footage prior to the car being positioned over the white-lines so it's not entirely clear what the full sequence of events might have been - may not have made any difference but i'd be interested to see. You may well consider he behaved impeccably obviously. That would worry me though.

Fukawitribe - nicely explained. No-one is saying that the motorist wasn't in the wrong. Just that the cyclist apparently didn't deal with the unfolding situation very well. In the text he says that 'this sort of thing happens all the time'. So why was the car pulling out such a surprise to him? Right from the start of the footage the car is already blocking the cycle lane and an obvious gap is forming in front of the black car. Poor driving, poor cycling. He should have vent his spleen on the local council and not the motorist. Frustration?

The cyclist had very little time to react and clearly did nothing wrong whatsoever. It is just amazing that you blame the victim for remonstrating with the motorist, just amazing.

Lukas wrote:

That's nothing. Really. OTT  reaction also. The bike rider Is filtering - slow down . 

That's not filtering - he's using a bike lane or trying to.

EK Spinner wrote:

I am very wary of condemming the driver on the basis of this video, from the first frame they have all 4 wheels over the giveway lines, and the rider is some way back from the area, no idea how long they have been in the cycle lane, it may have been empty when they started.

 

Also realistically where was he going to go at that speed, with a wet surface, the Cycle Lane is blocked ahead by a bus shelter (seriously !! who thought that was smart) which is fairly busy and the movemnets of the pedestrians is always going to be unpredictable.

agreed, the cyclist would have needed to come to almost a complete stop anyway at the bus shelter to move pass the pedestrians blocking the shared path - a tad too aggressive for my liking.

Still a shite move from the driver to stop completely over the path though.