Near Miss of the Day 500: What kinds of near miss are most common? (+ videos)

this time last year Id have said absolutely yes its the rush hour, but having had a lot of time to experience riding outside of the rush hour this year, now Im not so sure and would probably put it more down to types of roads instead, be that just the nature of them due to speed limit/topology/maybe even cycle infra,certain roads,and it may ultimately be linked to the type of traffic that uses those roads, literally generate more close passes and the time of day becomes largely irrelevant.

like today was on the receiveing end of several poor judgement close passes, and its just after 1pm in the afternoon, thats not rush hour, thats not lunch time, thats not school run time, there wasnt even that much volume of traffic about, though its a joke if even half of them were essential journeys.

That is my experience too. Some of the worst driving I've encountered has been outside of rush hour.

I used to commute at peak times on country roads that were quite busy with cars, but with few bikes. I saw the same cars, usually at the same time and place, day after day. So I think some of those drivers must have been expecting to see me on the bike.

GMBasix wrote:

Some shocking driving examples.  However:

"Other areas... include near misses on roundabouts... where a driver ‘must get in front’ of someone on a bike... examples are shown below."

There then follows a video of a cyclist who arrives at a roundabout a good 2 seconds after a First bus has already started onto the roundabout and to whom the cyclist should therefore give way.

I believe the bus driver clocked the rider and decided that they didn't want to cede priority and carried on. In that situation as a driver I would recognise that traffic approaching from the right has priority. However, it's not the worst I've ever seen....

I think that the point GMBasix is saying is that the bus was already on the roundabout so therfore had priority. 

I spotted that immediately as well - a pretty poor example.

Well I'd point people to the original post on that rather than rehash the debate on that one again.

And plus then on that basis I dont see what the MINI did wrong either.

Gimpl wrote:

I think that the point GMBasix is saying is that the bus was already on the roundabout so therfore had priority. 

I spotted that immediately as well - a pretty poor example.

Not sure where that statement is coming from the highway code says

"185
When reaching the roundabout you should
 

give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights"

First rule on roundabouts is give way to traffic coming from the right, at no place in the highway code does is state that getting onto a roundabout first gives priority. The highway code does not encourage a high stakes games of chicken where drivers approaching from two directions are encouraged to race to become first onto the roundabout and the loser bears responsbility for the resulting crash.

I think this is a lazy interpretation as it is expected that the vehicle you are likely to come in conflict with that is coming from your right will already be on the roundabout, but this is not the case with mini roundabouts and the HC instructs to treat mini roundabouts the same, i.e. give way to the right.

Any driver looking right seeing a cyclist and pulling onto the roundaout a second ahead would not perform the same action if the vehicle approaching from the right was an HGV. It is simply enacting the principle of might makes right, which is not how the roads should work.

There was a long discussion on roundabouts here

https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-476-learner-driver-roundabout...

It isn't as straight forward as it might seem.

hirsute wrote:

There was a long discussion on roundabouts here

https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-476-learner-driver-roundabout...

It isn't as straight forward as it might seem.

If the police are applying the law that way, then the highwaycode is out of step with reality. I think this was just an excuse to fob a cyclist off with. For an incident that did not actually result in collision, and would not have come to their attention with two drivers. Or it was a case of a single officer making a mistake. 

People make mistakes driving all the time, and the vast majority do not result in accidents as others compensate for them. Had there been a collision I would fully expect insurance liability to be placed on the driver failing to give way to the right.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Had there been a collision I would fully expect insurance liability to be placed on the driver failing to give way to the right.

It would actually have been the cyclists fault in this case as the bus had already crossed the line and was on the carriageway of the roundabout. It was debated in quite a lot of detail in the learner driver thread.

The highway code is not very clear about it, someone has suggested an update. Mini-roundabouts are a bit like the UK's attempt at a 4-way stop - another junction layout that is fraught with problems.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/your-story/many-people-get-confused-abou...

It comes down to a fundamental difference between what is written in the code and what (some) people think the code should be. I think what is written in the code is absolutely clear "give way to traffic coming from your right" there is no alternative interpetation. 

Same with pedestrians crossing sideroads, HC sates drivers should look for pedestrians and give way to any pedestrians already crossing when turning into side roads, but what we see are drivers assuming they have priority on the road and pedestrians yielding to them. To the point I have seen a car turn into a side road forcing a gap in a group of pedestrians already more than half way across.

The code does not say "if you get to the roundabout first" you have priority, however much people think or does or would like it to, or write in proposed updates.

All that said, I think this example of a near miss is not worth complaining about, as the bus can clearly be seen, with ample time to avoid collision. Including this in a list with dangerously close passes and left hooks just trivialises really dangerous occurances.

Anyone who argues the bus was right, should consider if they were riding a bike emerging from the left and the bus was coming straight through, would they pull out because 'they could enter the roundabout first and would have priority'? I certainly wouldn't.

wycombewheeler wrote:

The code does not say "if you get to the roundabout first" you have priority, however much people think or does or would like it to, or write in proposed updates.

If you delve deep into the legislation, it says to give way to traffic from the right circulating on the roundabout, but the HC falls short in conveying this critical bit of information. Which does indeed mean if you get there first you have priority.

The roundabout is considered a separate carriageway, so it's very similar to cars turning into a side road having to give way to pedestrians already crossing the road. If there's traffic already in the carriageway of the roundabout before you join it, you must give way.

In practise, people are more considerate, and most would not pull out like that. As most pedestrians, should they see a car indicating to turn into a road, would not step out to cross. But it's the legislation that counts when it comes to prosecutions.

HoarseMann wrote:

 

In practise, people are more considerate, and most would not pull out like that. As most pedestrians, should they see a car indicating to turn into a road, would not step out to cross. 

Interesting, a considerate pedestrian would not continue along the main road, in order to let someone turn into a side road. But a driver will expect a pedestrian to stop and wait (possibly in the cold and rain) while they steal priority. Where is the consideration for the driver in their nice warm metal box and comfortable seat? The one person causing anyone to need to wait, because if everyone was walking no one need stop at all, should be the least affected by it as others should be considrate? There is plenty of space for everyone to complete their journey, until one person occupies the space of an entire room.

This subservience on the alter of the car must stop. It's incredibly pervasive. It starts out with pedestrians who have priority at zebra crossings thanking drivers, and drivers expecting this. As if a driver would thank another driver who didnt drive straight out of a side road into their car as they were passing. And ends with drivers forcing pedestrians to yield when they should have priority including when crossing pavements to access premesis.

wycombewheeler wrote:

This subservience on the alter of the car must stop.

I'm with you on that, but until the HC is clearer (the recent proposed changes to explicitly give vehicles going straight on priority, hierachy of users etc.), then care needs to be taken in these situations.

But there's no reason not to thank people for giving way, I do it all the time.

On Saturday I heard the driver of a huge Range Rover sound their horn in an very aggressive manner at a pedestrian who had had the temerity to be almost finished crossing a side road, while the motor vehicle was accelerated around the corner.

ktache wrote:

On Saturday I heard the driver of a huge Range Rover sound their horn in an very aggressive manner at a pedestrian who had had the temerity to be almost finished crossing a side road, while the motor vehicle was accelerated around the corner.

I've had one of those, as I approached the side road I glanced over my shoulder saw no one was about to turn in and started to cross, but a driver some distance behind me who had a clear view of me and my direction of travel expected me to stop turn 180 degrees look for any vehicles within 150m and then wait so he could turn across my path, in what we would call a left hook if I was cycling.

Perhaps I should have doffed my cap as he passed or genuflected to the almighty car driver. Interesting that he could see me well enough to decide whether or not my look was sufficiently exagerated, but not well enough to appreciate I was likely to cross the road and slow down well in advance of the junction.

HoarseMann wrote:

 

If you delve deep into the legislation, it says to give way to traffic from the right circulating on the roundabout, but the HC falls short in conveying this critical bit of information. Which does indeed mean if you get there first you have priority.

That an interesting point, so to have to give way, the traffic must be both approaching from the right AND circulating the roundabout. Only one of these applies to the bus. (it is circulating the roundbout) and the other applies to the bike (it is approaching from the right. Which suggests that the legislation as written does not give either vehicle priority in this case.

[quote=HoarseMann]

But there's no reason not to thank people for giving way, I do it all the time.

[/quote]

If the driver has the foresight to look ahead and slow before I have even reached the kerb yes, not when I am halfway across when they arrive. Also when driving, in the grey area where two way flow is prevented by parked cars and someone must wait, and so who yields becomes a matter of choice. Also yes. But if I am cycling on my side of the centre white line and a car is forced to wait because of a parked car on their side, I do not believe they should demand thanks for their consideration. Their journey is interupted by the parked car, or their choice of a large vehicle to transport a single human, not by me riding on my side of the road.

I don't believe as you are driving along the main road you thank drivers who stop at the give way lines of side roads, which is the direct correlation to the zebra crossing. One road user has explicit priority, the other should comply without expectation. 

wycombewheeler wrote:

That an interesting point, so to have to give way, the traffic must be both approaching from the right AND circulating the roundabout.

Ok, I've gone and had a look again at the legislation and there's no 'right' in there, it's just the carriageway (image and link below).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made

That's poorly thought out legislation - it means that mini-roundabouts are a race to see who can get onto "the carriageway of the roundabout" first and to hell with traffic approaching from the right.

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's poorly thought out legislation - it means that mini-roundabouts are a race to see who can get onto "the carriageway of the roundabout" first and to hell with traffic approaching from the right.

Yep, it surprised me as I hadn't fully appreciated that is indeed what the legislation describes.

Mini-roundabouts are often used to replace a T-junction, to allow the minor road traffic to have a priority that is equal to the major road. It's almost like it could be 'merge-in-turn' at mini-roundabouts, rather than 'give way to the right'. I think that is really what the mini-roundabout was intended to do, a bit like the 4-way stop, but it's not conveyed as such in the highway code.

Even weirder is the legislation for regular roundabouts is slightly different, in that the 'give way to traffic circulating' is merely advisory!

Still, I've managed to negotiate these road features for decades without needing to know all these details - but now I appreciate this I'm far more cautious and perhaps a bit more courteous!

On thanking motorists I always try to. If they stay behind a parked car and they me through I always say thank you as a lot of them will try to squeeze past. Sometimes I know I am being followed by a car and they have stopped for the car and not me but I thank them anyway so they know in future that it is appreciated. I recently thanked a driver waiting at a side road who gave way. The driver probably could have got out just before I arrived but they erred on the side of caution and I appreciate that.

On roundabouts I think that it says somewhere that you should approach mini roundabouts with caution presumably in case somebody pulls out on to the roundabout as you approach but before you have entered the roundabout. The whole point of mini roundabouts is to slow down traffic and make a junction safer. This applies to cyclists as well as cars.

HoarseMann wrote:

....

If you delve deep into the legislation, it says to give way to traffic from the right circulating on the roundabout, but the HC falls short in conveying this critical bit of information. Which does indeed mean if you get there first you have priority.

The roundabout is considered a separate carriageway, so it's very similar to cars turning into a side road having to give way to pedestrians already crossing the road. If there's traffic already in the carriageway of the roundabout before you join it, you must give way.

In practise, people are more considerate, and most would not pull out like that. As most pedestrians, should they see a car indicating to turn into a road, would not step out to cross. But it's the legislation that counts when it comes to prosecutions.

Absolutely, when it comes to prosecutions.

However, the HWC is the ACOP, the Accepted Code of Practice, and this is what should be followed.

My analogy is this. The law won't/can't prosecute me for speeding if I am below 60 on a national speed limit road. That doesn't say that it's ok for me to be going at 60 on a country road. The HWC says that I need to drive to conditions. It would be difficult to prosecute me, however, it's still shit dangerous driving.

Another: the law can't prosecute me for driving with  79mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood. This doesn't say that I should, and it is well understood that that level of alcohol can impair driving ability to unacceptble level - as much as using a mobile phone. The HWC is clear: Rule 95 "Do not drink and drive as it will seriously affect your judgement and abilities." (Emphasis as published)

So as the HWC says give way to approaching traffic, and <2s away can easily be considered as approaching traffic, the driver was wrong and should have waited.

Justifying piss poor driving by going to the legislation instead of the ACOP really has no legs at all. If you have to fall back on what the law won't prosecute, you're in that grey area that allows no margin for error from you or other road users, and risk is increased. Therefore poor, high risk driving

Captain Badger wrote:

Justifying piss poor driving by going to the legislation instead of the ACOP really has no legs at all. If you have to fall back on what the law won't prosecute, you're in that grey area that allows no margin for error from you or other road users, and risk is increased.

No one is justifying the driving, it was inconsiderate. Just pointing out that priority is not as clear-cut as you might think and more care needs to be taken when approaching roundabouts.

The HWC is bits of the legislation made more readable, with some other bits added on that are good practise, but not legally binding. It's also far from perfect in many areas. So, you really do have to go to the legislation for the absolute answers.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/annex-4-the-road-user-and-t...

HoarseMann wrote:

..

No one is justifying the driving, it was inconsiderate. Just pointing out that priority is not as clear-cut as you might think and more care needs to be taken when approaching roundabouts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were. My point was more general, that if you have strayed into the gap between HWC and legislation, you are already driving shitly. 

Priority is clearly laid out by HWC - this is an accepted code of practice, with an intention of reducing risk. Stray from that and you are increasing risk. Will you get prosecuted? that's another question.

HoarseMann wrote:

The HWC is bits of the legislation made more readable, with some other bits added on that are good practise, but not legally binding. It's also far from perfect in many areas. So, you really do have to go to the legislation for the absolute answers.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/annex-4-the-road-user-and-t...

No, it's not legislation-lite. At the risk of repetition (Iknow...) it's the Accepted Code of Practice - ACOPs have their own legal standing. It is the go-to so that we can understand how to drive to a standardised safe level without having to decipher legislation. Anyone who is bypassing that and going to legislation is essentially saying "I know that I'm driving outside accepted norms, but you can't actually prosecute me, so actually I'm right." 

I think we're on the same page mostly. We both accept that it is shit driving outside the HWC. We also both accept that it would be unlikely that a driver would be prosecuted. Anything else is hair-splitting

Captain Badger wrote:

My point was more general, that if you have strayed into the gap between HWC and legislation, you are already driving shitly. 

Insofar as this relates to my earlier comments, my use of the legislation is to amplify the direction given in the Highway Code.  The latter necessarily reduces the presentation of legislation; that legislation still applies, whether or not it is expressed in the Code, and a breach still creates a liability.

Captain Badger wrote:

Priority is clearly laid out by HWC - this is an accepted code of practice, with an intention of reducing risk. Stray from that and you are increasing risk. Will you get prosecuted? that's another question.

The emphasis is that the legislation, signage and markings and the Highway Code generally avoid giving "priority", since this leads to entitlement and presumptive behaviour.  They focus on A's duty to give way to B, not B's priority. 

This principle is reinforced in the information prior to Rule 103:

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

So, that's clear:  always give way...  In the bus v bike situation, the bike crossed a give way when there was another vehicle on the roundabout, when he had ample time to slow down to allow the bus to pass ahead of him, and was dismayed to discover that his way was not clear.  On further review of the video, the bus had also begun to cross the give way only about 1 second after the cyclist came into view (still a distance from the junction). 

On one hand, the priority is clear, and it is stated in the Highway Code (as long as para 185 is read - as policy and rules should be - in full) and in the legislation.  Each has a duty to give way; neither can safely claim priority.  However, should the bus driver consider the cyclist to be "approaching from the right" for the purposes of rule 185, when he only came into view a moment before the bus crossed the give way line, and was still 2 seconds from the roundabout?  Should the cyclist have considered the bus to be on the roundabout, to access which he had to cross a give way line?  If a car was 2 seconds away from the roundabout but travelling at 30mph towards it, the visibility would have been a fraction of a second.  A vehicle approaching both a zebra and a roundabout with a limited visibility of approaching traffic from other directions should be exercising greater caution.

Furthermore, the cyclist should have considered the bus to be a vehicle that would require additional consideration:  if it stops suddenly, it can cause injury or death to its occupants in a way that a private car would not; it also has limited manoeuvrability over a roundabout.  That doesn't have a bearing on who should give way but since, in this case, there are arguable reasons why either one should ideally have considered giving way, the bus was the vehicle with fewer available options.

If the cyclist had been a driver on his driving test, would he have passed?

Captain Badger wrote:

Accepted Code of Practice - ACOPs have their own legal standing. It is the go-to so that we can understand how to drive to a standardised safe level without having to decipher legislation. Anyone who is bypassing that and going to legislation is essentially saying "I know that I'm driving outside accepted norms, but you can't actually prosecute me, so actually I'm right." 

Off-topic, but... it's not actually an ACOP.  Approved Codes of Practice are provided for in H&S legislation (Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, s16).  The Highway Code is the Highway Code, and it is provided for separately in the Road Traffic Act 1930, s45.  It varies from ACOPS in that it must be taken before Parliament by the SoS for Transport for substantial changes; ACOPs are produced by the HSE under SoS approval.  

The provisions in the respective acts amount to similar consideration in law, although ACOPs allow for alternative considerations to be acceptable defence if the relevant ACOP has not been followed verbatim.  Less so with the Highway Code - yet we still have inconsistency in applied guidance, e.g.: the 1.5m pass rule being implemented, absent of specific guidance to that measurement in the current HC; primary position being instructed to cyclists, but not explained in the HC.  These are fine principles, but the HC does not specifically determine their validity.  Reference to legislation and common law is needed to establish civil or criminal liability.

GMBasix wrote:

The emphasis is that the legislation, signage and markings and the Highway Code generally avoid giving "priority", since this leads to entitlement and presumptive behaviour.  They focus on A's duty to give way to B, not B's priority. 

On the contrary, priority is definitely laid out where the other road user has it, as in the example. From the bus drivers perspective HWC says give way to the right

You are correct about entitlement, usually from deduction "I have to give way to traffic on the right. Therefore traffic on the left must give way to me". I agree this is wrong-headed - you have to expect people pulling out in front of you, and stop if they do to void a collision. However, this does not put the person who pulls ut in the right.

GMBasix wrote:

This principle is reinforced in the information prior to Rule 103:

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

So, that's clear:  always give way... 

This the rider did - there was no collision.....

GMBasix wrote:

In the bus v bike situation, the bike crossed a give way when there was another vehicle on the roundabout, when he had ample time to slow down to allow the bus to pass ahead of him, and was dismayed to discover that his way was not clear.  On further review of the video, the bus had also begun to cross the give way only about 1 second after the cyclist came into view (still a distance from the junction). 

The bus started to cross after the bike came into view, in fact the bike was in line of sight from the give way line before the bus even reached it. Was clearly in view approaching the junction. From the drivers perspective, it was clear. In your words, always give way....

From whichever way you look at this, the bus driver was in the wrong. You say yourself, always give way.....

Now, was the rider in the wrong? The rider recognises what is happening, and slows to a stop in a controlled fashion, allowing the bus to go. In effect giving way. I'm not sure where he is wrong here.....

GMBasix wrote:

On one hand, the priority is clear, and it is stated in the Highway Code (as long

 

...

 

ould ideally have considered giving way, the bus was the vehicle with fewer available options.

I'm sorry dude, this seems a very wordy way of arguing up is down. The bus drivers options were indeed limited, yet ample. Stop at the line and give way to traffic approaching from the right. Would the driver have passed his test I wonder? I think we both know the answer there....

GMBasix wrote:

Off-topic, but... it's not actually an ACOP.  Approved Codes of Practice are p.....

....., but the HC does not specifically determine their validity.  Reference to legislation and common law is needed to establish civil or criminal liability.

Thanks for this, looking at my IOSH notes, it is indeed a strong analogy only, however as you say, off topic

So in summary, I quote my old driving instructor - ex-copper and a regular caution. "Give way to the right, don't trust the buggers on the left!". One of our protagonists followed this line, the other didn't. 

Blimey, this amount of debate really shows it's confusing!

I think the key here is the fact the roundabout is considered a separate carriageway. In any road, if you are joining a new carriageway, then you must give way to traffic established in that carriageway. Whether they are to your right or left becomes irrelevant if they're not even on the same carriageway as you.

There was much debate some years ago at my work as there had been a few 'near misses' with people turning left out of one of the site exits. A lot of drivers fail to check there was no oncoming overtaking traffic approaching from their left, so only look to their right before pulling out. Many commented that the overtaking driver was 'on my side of the road' - failing to appreciate that no part of the road was 'their side' until they were actually established on that road, and the give way markings applied in both directions (even when there's double white lines on the main road).

Now it's *really* bad practise to overtake across the mouth of a junction, but it's not illegal. Failing to look both ways and pulling out of a side road head-on into an overtaking vehicle is. If there had of been a collision that went to court, you can imagine neither party being blameless, but the greater responsibility lies with the vehicle joining the carriageway.

HoarseMann wrote:

Blimey, this amount of debate really shows it's confusing!

That's what worries me, and why I don't trust the buggers on the left. This to me is straight forward - the HWC is clear.

As I mentioned in my post to GMBasix - the bus driver was wrong, they didn't give way to traffic approaching. The rider did give way - there was no collision

Anything else is chatter

HoarseMann wrote:

I think the key here is the fact the roundabout is considered a separate carriageway. In any road, if you are joining a new carriageway, then you must give way to traffic established in that carriageway. Whether they are to your right or left becomes irrelevant if they're not even on the same carriageway as you.

Again,HWC is clear - give way to traffic approaching from the right. The rider did give way to established traffic. The issue was that the driver established themselves in breach of HWC. The rider modified their progress to account for the poor conduct of the driver

HoarseMann wrote:

There was much debate some years ago at my work as there had been a few 'near misses' with people turning left out of one of the site exits. A lot of drivers fail to check there was no oncoming overtaking traffic approaching from their left, so only look to their right before pulling out. Many commented that the overtaking driver was 'on my side of the road' - failing to appreciate that no part of the road was 'their side' until they were actually established on that road, and the give way markings applied in both directions (even when there's double white lines on the main road).

Exactly, this is a result of not knowing what the HWC actually says, and a sense of entitlement about "right of way".

HoarseMann wrote:

Now it's *really* bad practise to overtake across the mouth of a junction, but it's not illegal. Failing to look both ways and pulling out of a side road head-on into an overtaking vehicle is. If there had of been a collision that went to court, you can imagine neither party being blameless, but the greater responsibility lies with the vehicle joining the carriageway.

Agree. this falls into the gap between HWC and legislation. The greater liability might well be decided with reference to HWC.

There was, and I've been thinking about it since, whilst driving, and wish to change my plea, m'lud.

And it is my observation that in fact cars do give way to traffic approaching from the right, regardless of whether it has broached the mini roundabout or not. And so do I, instinctively. It's only by overthinking it that I previously came to the opposite conclusion.

So in fact, as I observe it, mini roundabouts not come down to a race for the line. It is just give way to the right.

On normal roundabouts however, I notice some drivers of powerful cars take great delight in squirting their vehicle round the roundabout with unexpected speed, the better to catch out others who failed to anticipate their impressive acceleration. Such drivers are always ready to flash their HID lamps, simultaneously sounding their horn, almost as if they were prepared aforethought. I take my pleasure proceeding at a stately pace around such roundabouts.

wycombewheeler wrote:

...the highway code says

"185
When reaching the roundabout you should

give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights"

selective quote.  It goes on to say (in the same rule), "watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout".

wycombewheeler wrote:

First rule on roundabouts is give way to traffic coming from the right, 

No, the first rule on roundabouts is the previous rule (184), which says, "On approaching a roundabout take notice and act on all the information available to you".  All the information includes the fact that the bus was already at the junction and was setting off into it 2 seconds before the cyclist reached the give way.  All the information includes the fact that the approach was a downhill, and the cyclist should have been slowing ready to stop for anybody already on the roundabout.  

wycombewheeler wrote:

at no place in the highway code does is state that getting onto a roundabout first gives priority. 

Well, that's sort of right.  As far as I can find, the only sign/marking for any road situation in the TSRGD that gives priority is shown in diagram 811 (priority over oncoming traffic).  In all other cases, the instruction is for the other party to give way.  However, in the same rule (185), it does state that you should watch out for traffic already on the roundabout.  The give way sign the cyclist crosses is accompanied in the TSRGD with the following,

"Vehicular traffic approaching a roundabout with a small central island or approaching a junction indicated by the [roundabout marking] should give way at, or immediately beyond, the line to traffic circulating on the carriageway of the roundabout" (TSRGD 2016, schedule 9, part 6, item 6)

... the "traffic circulating" was the bus, since it has already joined the junction.  The cyclist crossed a give way marking to join the junction when there was another vehicle already in the junction.  That is similar to a road user getting fractious because the lights changed to green when there was a vehicle still clearing the junction:  the green light does not give priority, it just says you may proceed if it is safe to do so.

wycombewheeler wrote:

The highway code does not encourage a high stakes games of chicken where drivers approaching from two directions are encouraged to race to become first onto the roundabout and the loser bears responsbility for the resulting crash.

Nobody was racing in this instance so, while I agree with you on this point, it is moot.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I think this is a lazy interpretation as it is expected that the vehicle you are likely to come in conflict with that is coming from your right will already be on the roundabout, but this is not the case with mini roundabouts and the HC instructs to treat mini roundabouts the same, i.e. give way to the right.

You might not agree with the interpretation, but I don't think you could reasonably argue that it is lazy.  Meanwhile, your intepretation suggests that anybody within a postcode of the roundabout has priority if they happen to be coming from the right.  That is not the purpose of a roundabout, mini or otherwise.  They are supposed to be levellers of priority to avoid the major/minor road domination that a straightforward give way junction would create.  As you approach a roundabout, you should anticipate the need to stop (especially since he was also crossing a zebra on the approach).  The cyclist clearly had a view that there was a bus who was entering the roundabout before him, but the cyclist did not stop.  He was playing the high stakes game and did not reflect the cirucmstances plainly in front of him.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Any driver looking right seeing a cyclist and pulling onto the roundaout a second ahead would not perform the same action if the vehicle approaching from the right was an HGV. It is simply enacting the principle of might makes right, which is not how the roads should work.

Two seconds ahead of the cyclist reaching the give way, and roughly three seconds ahead of the cyclist reaching him; when the bus was already at the give way, and the cyclist was slow moving and several yards from the junction.  3 seconds is plenty of time for traffic lights to signal cars to stop from 30 mph at traffic lights, it should be enough to anticipate stopping at a roundabout.

You're right, it is not a matter of might makes right.  It is a matter that the cyclist failed to anticipate, failed to give way to traffic circulating on the roundabout, and pressed the matter unnecessarily, causing himself to be stationary in the middle of a junction.