Near Miss of the Day 264: Close pass and a bit of afters

JohnnyRemo wrote:

d10brp wrote:

biker phil wrote:

Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.

On a climb or slowish ride, I agree, but this is neither. The passing areas are small and would have required quite significant braking, all before the road opens up shortly anyway.

He's behind for an additional 15 seconds after the dodgy looking farm entrance where he expected  to get past, making his journey around five seconds longer....

Making his journey 5 seconds longer, if you don't count:

 * that the driver will have  to reduce his speed if the cyclist slows to pull into a layby or mouth of a junction

 * that there is nothing else on the driver's journey that will delay him - the cyclist in the video has posted here that he all but caught up with the driver by the next junction.

I am glad he has been charged with dangerous driving, I just hope the CPS don't chicken out and reduce it to careless driving or decide to NFA it.

biker phil wrote:

Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.

+1 for this comment, almost always receive an ackowledgement especially from HGV drivers when I do this. No point in peeing them off purposley, there is only one loser...

biker phil wrote:

Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.

Well said Phil - the rider in this case had plenty of opportunity to pull over.

Greeneyelevin wrote:

biker phil wrote:

Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.

 

Well said Phil - the rider in this case had plenty of opportunity to pull over.

Why should the rider pull over? - the road doesn’t go on for miles single file, very shortly after it opens up. Does one person have a right to get to their destination faster than another? Of course not, I am fully behind being courteous but where does the line get drawn? Get off the road whilst driving because someone in a car behind wants to go faster? Of course not, that’s not how life works, a little give and take is required. Being bullied off the road is just not on.

Htc wrote:

Greeneyelevin wrote:

biker phil wrote:

Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.

 

Well said Phil - the rider in this case had plenty of opportunity to pull over.

Why should the rider pull over? - the road doesn’t go on for miles single file, very shortly after it opens up. Does one person have a right to get to their destination faster than another? Of course not, I am fully behind being courteous but where does the line get drawn? Get off the road whilst driving because someone in a car behind wants to go faster? Of course not, that’s not how life works, a little give and take is required. Being bullied off the road is just not on.

I have to agree. I genreally try and pull over to let other vehicles pass if I'm holding them up but in this case carrying on til the road widens was the right thing to do and what I would do. The only point at which the rider could have pulled over was by the gate but at the speed he was travelling at he passed it in a couple of seconds. To pull up suddenly with an impatient driver tailgating is a recipe for disaster. 

I hope the footage has been forwarded to the police and that they act upon it.

Greeneyelevin wrote:

biker phil wrote:

Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.

 

Well said Phil - the rider in this case had plenty of opportunity to pull over.

Errrrrrm, no not really!

I absolutely agree that there is a time and place for moving over or even stopping to allow traffic to get past. It is the right thing to do (Highway Code Rule 169 - although apparently it's not a legal obligation for cyclists?) and when done properly usually gets a good response from drivers. In this case however the only potential place for moving over was the gateway (or small passing place) which was not really suitable and would've meant the cyclist would have to slow to a complete stop to be out of the way. Slowing early enough to stop safely would've only delayed the driver even more than the alternative which was what the cyclist in this video did. The road widened only a short time later giving the motorist room to make a safe pass, something he/she certainly didn't do. Apparently the driver also felt the cyclist should've stopped sooner, but here is NO justfication for this driver behaving as they did. Very poor and I really hope this has been submitted to the Police.

biker phil wrote:

Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.

I try to make a call on what I think holds up motorists the least, just a minute earlier I had pulled in to a passing place for another vehicle on a slower stretch.

But on this road, doing 45kph, seeing another car not that much further ahead and knowing that in a few hundred meters the road opens up, I judged that I was going to hold the driver up less by continuing rather than slowing enough to pull in to the one passing place I could have.

I almost caught him up while he waited behind a car to pull out at the T junction ahead, so as is often the case I didn't actually hold him up at all.

biker phil wrote:

Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.

I try to move over as well, but this LR driver was on the horn after just 15 seconds of being behind the cyclist who had no prior chance to pull over.

The rider was going at a fair old lick & would've had to haul on his anchors pretty hard to get out of the way. Having a car tailgating like this makes me hesitate to slow down or pull over as the driver may not react to me slowing down in time to avoid hitting my back wheel.

There was room for a safe pass only a few more seconds later as the road entered a built-up area. This is an impatient & dangerous driver.

There are three points on my commute home along the lanes where I always pull over to let cars pass from behind me - if they were this close up my ass I would not feel safe slowing down.

biker phil wrote:

Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.

As do I.

But.  (And it's a big but.)  I don't know the rider's camera ... but if that were my camera view, that's a bloody big vehicle, far too close, and dangerously impatient (if not downright aggressive).

I'm quite happy with the cyclist's choice - it would be mine.  I'd NOT want to have two-ton aggressive f***-wit run up my back as a I slow for the passing place.

richiewormiling wrote:

What a tw@t. Always the ones with status cars and bigger egos, thinking they are living the dream by acquiring but they are bitter twisted and angry souls for going down that route.

I wouldn't have a Land Rover given to me. I've driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.

biker phil wrote:

I wouldn't have a Land Rover given to me. I've driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.

[/quote]

fair point.

[/quote]I wouldn't have a Land Rover given to me. I've driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.

[/quote]

It's a RANGE ROVER not a Land Rover.  It's written clearly on the car's bonnet.

They're driven by entirely different sorts.

Most Range Rover drivers, especially drivers of new Range Rovers, are arrogant, entitled, think they own the road types.  There used to be a black Range Rover driver who lived near me and I had a least 3 unpleasant encounters with it and it's driver.

I got close passed by it once in a narrow lane while cycling and also, while driving my small car, got forced into a wall, smashing my wing mirror as the Range Rover flew round a bend on my side of the road.

On another occasion I had to reverse half a mile down a lane because it wouldn't stop at a passing place.

Landrovers, including Discoveries, are more often driven by farmer types and people with lots of dogs and generally appear more easy going.

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I wouldn't have a Land Rover given to me. I've driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.

[/quote]

It's a RANGE ROVER not a Land Rover.  It's written clearly on the car's bonnet.

They're driven by entirely different sorts.

Most Range Rover drivers, especially drivers of new Range Rovers, are arrogant, entitled, think they own the road types.  There used to be a black Range Rover driver who lived near me and I had a least 3 unpleasant encounters with it and it's driver.

I got close passed by it once in a narrow lane while cycling and also, while driving my small car, got forced into a wall, smashing my wing mirror as the Range Rover flew round a bend on my side of the road.

On another occasion I had to reverse half a mile down a lane because it wouldn't stop at a passing place.

Landrovers, including Discoveries, are more often driven by farmer types and people with lots of dogs and generally appear more easy going.

[/quote]And who makes Range Rovers? Land Rover. Land Rover is the manufacturer, Range Rover is the model range. The company is called Jaguar Land Rover, not Jaguar Range Rover.

biker phil wrote:

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I wouldn't have a Land Rover given to me. I've driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.

It's a RANGE ROVER not a Land Rover.  It's written clearly on the car's bonnet.

They're driven by entirely different sorts.

Most Range Rover drivers, especially drivers of new Range Rovers, are arrogant, entitled, think they own the road types.  There used to be a black Range Rover driver who lived near me and I had a least 3 unpleasant encounters with it and it's driver.

I got close passed by it once in a narrow lane while cycling and also, while driving my small car, got forced into a wall, smashing my wing mirror as the Range Rover flew round a bend on my side of the road.

On another occasion I had to reverse half a mile down a lane because it wouldn't stop at a passing place.

Landrovers, including Discoveries, are more often driven by farmer types and people with lots of dogs and generally appear more easy going.

[/quote]And who makes Range Rovers? Land Rover. Land Rover is the manufacturer, Range Rover is the model range. The company is called Jaguar Land Rover, not Jaguar Range Rover.

[/quote]

Personally, I find people who genaralise are not a good source of reliable info irrespective of their vehicular choice.

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I wouldn't have a Land Rover given to me. I've driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.

[/quote]

It's a RANGE ROVER not a Land Rover.  It's written clearly on the car's bonnet.

They're driven by entirely different sorts.

Most Range Rover drivers, especially drivers of new Range Rovers, are arrogant, entitled, think they own the road types.  There used to be a black Range Rover driver who lived near me and I had a least 3 unpleasant encounters with it and it's driver.

I got close passed by it once in a narrow lane while cycling and also, while driving my small car, got forced into a wall, smashing my wing mirror as the Range Rover flew round a bend on my side of the road.

On another occasion I had to reverse half a mile down a lane because it wouldn't stop at a passing place.

Landrovers, including Discoveries, are more often driven by farmer types and people with lots of dogs and generally appear more easy going.

[/quote]

Land Rover Discoveries are Land Rovers, but so are Land Rover Range Rovers.  It doesn't stop being a Land Rover when when they add the Range Rover badge.

hirsute wrote:

Looked like he was trying to get you to fall off.
What could possibly have gone wrong ?

So true. Never mind the pass, tailgating a cyclist is surely reckless driving - as you point out, one slip or fall and they are road-kill.

Sriracha wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Looked like he was trying to get you to fall off. What could possibly have gone wrong ?

So true. Never mind the pass, tailgating a cyclist is surely reckless driving - as you point out, one slip or fall and they are road-kill.

I was a bus passenger night before last.  Two cyclists were riding side by side on a section of road where there's double white lines - https://goo.gl/maps/ny2exC3FvZ22 - and they were definitely not travelling below 10 mph.

The driver of the double decker bus on which I was a passenger took exception to this, so followed them maybe three feet off their back wheels.   I was sat there white knuckled, hoping neither of the cyclists made any sort of mistake, because there was no way at all that the driver could have stopped the bus or even reacted...  Eventually, the driver got enough speed up to overtake them (closely!) shortly afterwards.

To my shame, I chickened out of mentioning any of this to the driver when I go off the bus...

brooksby wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Looked like he was trying to get you to fall off. What could possibly have gone wrong ?

So true. Never mind the pass, tailgating a cyclist is surely reckless driving - as you point out, one slip or fall and they are road-kill.

I was a bus passenger night before last.  Two cyclists were riding side by side on a section of road where there's double white lines - https://goo.gl/maps/ny2exC3FvZ22 - and they were definitely not travelling below 10 mph.

The driver of the double decker bus on which I was a passenger took exception to this, so followed them maybe three feet off their back wheels.   I was sat there white knuckled, hoping neither of the cyclists made any sort of mistake, because there was no way at all that the driver could have stopped the bus or even reacted...  Eventually, the driver got enough speed up to overtake them (closely!) shortly afterwards.

To my shame, I chickened out of mentioning any of this to the driver when I go off the bus...

Did you not get a chance to video it on your phone? 

hirsute wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Looked like he was trying to get you to fall off. What could possibly have gone wrong ?

So true. Never mind the pass, tailgating a cyclist is surely reckless driving - as you point out, one slip or fall and they are road-kill.

I was a bus passenger night before last.  Two cyclists were riding side by side on a section of road where there's double white lines - https://goo.gl/maps/ny2exC3FvZ22 - and they were definitely not travelling below 10 mph.

The driver of the double decker bus on which I was a passenger took exception to this, so followed them maybe three feet off their back wheels.   I was sat there white knuckled, hoping neither of the cyclists made any sort of mistake, because there was no way at all that the driver could have stopped the bus or even reacted...  Eventually, the driver got enough speed up to overtake them (closely!) shortly afterwards.

To my shame, I chickened out of mentioning any of this to the driver when I go off the bus...

Did you not get a chance to video it on your phone? 

I always forget that my phone can record video!  I don’t think I’ve *ever* recorded a video on it...