Today’s near miss is a fine example of an incident that will be familiar to many a cyclist. You see a driver reversing out of a driveway up ahead and you’re looking to give them a wide berth, but the person behind chooses this moment to overtake.
On this occasion the reversing motorist encroached into the cycle lane and George was left with a decidedly narrow gap to get through.
The incident occurred on the A307 Richmond Road from Kingston Upon Thames to Ham, back in October. George reckons it’s some of the worst cycle lane in Surrey.
“It was purely innocent, I’m sure,” he reflected. “The driver adjacent in the blue Volvo was completely oblivious to the impending pinch point, despite their open window and my polite requests for a little extra room.
“It’s amazing how suck-it-in slim you can become when required.”
> 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">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.
70 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 336: Driver overtakes as another reverses into cycle lane”
“I’m in my lane so done
“I’m in my lane so done nothing wrong m’lud”
Once again my sarcasm
Once again my sarcasm detector is on the blink. The quote ““It was purely innocent, I’m sure,” he reflected. “The driver adjacent in the blue Volvo was completely oblivious to the impending pinch point, despite their open window and my polite requests for a little extra room” was meant ironically wasn’t it?
Oh dear, here I go though,
Oh dear, here I go though, did the rider ever think of applying the brakes?
alansmurphy wrote:
Oh dear, driver overtakes incredibly dangerously and you choose to highlight what the cyclist could have differently?!
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I know the law calls for 1.5 metres and give the room of a small car, however I don’t know what the law indicates when people are in “seperate” lanes. Take the paint away and it is a dangerous pass, with it there, does it count?
I’m genuinely asking as I do cycle to work and home along a two lane dual carriageway, and with all the parked cars it is single lane really. Obviously I have to cycle outside of the dooring zone which puts me close to the centre lines and vehicles go past giving me variuous definitions of “room” whilst in the other lane.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Although some people regard it as a separate lane, the idea is that drivers overtaking vulnerable road users (cyclists, moped riders, horse riders etc) give a minimum of 1.5 metres (Police guidance) or preferably go into the next carriageway (see picture in the Highway Code section 163) regardless of what is painted on the road. A number of drivers seem to think that this breaches their human rights.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
99.9% of these I totally agree with the cyclist and in this case I still think the overtaking driver was wrong as they weren’t in a position to complete the move or giving enough room (though slightly blinded by seeing 2 lanes as previously mentioned).
However, keeping momentum etc. shouldn’t be the cyclists primary concern. They were looking to change lanes due to the reversing car and never seemingly thought of just stopping…
alansmurphy wrote:
One of the issues with the cycle lane then. the driver was not overtaking. the cyclist was a in a different lane and should have given way.
alansmurphy wrote:
Brakes ? Even stopping pedalling for 2 secs would allow him the option to evade behind the passing car.
Should not NEED to do so, but I’ll opt for self preservation over “I’m right”, although “I’m right” can stretch quite far sometimes.
StuInNorway wrote:
To me that looks like that’s pretty much what he did. Obviously the rider was keen to maintain momentum, but certainly did slow enough to tuck in (just!) behind the left rear of the passing car.
The party most ‘at fault’ was the one reversing onto the road. Not actually illeagal to do so, but not advised either.
Highway Code 201
Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.
StuInNorway wrote:
Rider then proceeds to try to pass the car on the inside, not a wise move – once a car passes you you are forgotten, don’t put yourself back in danger just to keep your speed up – the cyclist equivalent of the car driver’s must get in front.
bikeman01 wrote:
We call this filtering, personally I do it on the outside, sod the comedy infra
visionset wrote:
Me too.
dobbo996 wrote:
You’re both wrong.
The traffic was freely moving – he was undertaking.
alansmurphy wrote:
What about the drivers of both cars obeying the law?
The volvo driver has already broken the law with their initial assault of the cyclist, the driver of the black vehicle also commits a criminal act and all you can come out with is about the cyclist applying their brakes!
For one thing they have multiple things going on at the same time, such that it’s not easy to make a decision as to what to do, maybe they could have but these things unfold in a few seconds and with those two threats coming one after another the rider took what in some ways is a simpler if not looking like the less safer option.
There is nothing on the rider at all, both drivers should get NIPs as a minimum.
…. and the car was already
…. and the car was already parallel with the bike long before approaching the reversing car. Just one of those things, nobody’s fault on the face of it, but doesn’t say much for the respect reversing vehicles have for bike lanes.
More justification for the
More justification for the removal of all these awful dangerous white lines that have been painted for our ‘benefit’.
I’d agree with slowing down
I’d agree with slowing down there and going behind the blue car. The Volvos backed out a bit so they can see down the road and they arent moving and they may have been there before the bike was even in sight.
As for “Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can” .
Well if the cars already in there nose first then you can’t.
nicmason wrote:
Don’t you just hate it when someone airlifts your car into your drive?
Quote:
[quote/]
Don’t you just hate it when someone airlifts your car into your drive?
[/quote]
Two things.
1. Not all cars are continually driven by the same person so it may not have been parked by the person getting the car out .
2. So you have never ever driven nose first into parking place in your whole life even when for some unknown reason it may have been expedient at the time ?
nicmason wrote:
Two things.
1. Not all cars are continually driven by the same person so it may not have been parked by the person getting the car out .
2. So you have never ever driven nose first into parking place in your whole life even when for some unknown reason it may have been expedient at the time ?
[/quote]
1. Why can’t all drivers just reverse into the space?
2. I haven’t as I don’t drive (never learned). However, those instances when someone does drive nose first into a space (it may well be more convenient or expedient), it would make sense for the person reversing to take extra care and only do it when safe to do so and not into the path of traffic (motorised or not).
hawkinspeter wrote:
1. Why can’t all drivers just reverse into the space?
2. I haven’t as I don’t drive (never learned). However, those instances when someone does drive nose first into a space (it may well be more convenient or expedient), it would make sense for the person reversing to take extra care and only do it when safe to do so and not into the path of traffic (motorised or not).
[/quote]
That explains a lot.
Do you ever get driven anywhere ?
nicmason wrote:
That explains a lot.
Do you ever get driven anywhere ?
[/quote]
Well, you’ve explained nothing. Care to answer my 2 points?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, you’ve explained nothing. Care to answer my 2 points?
[/quote]
Ok I’m not being chippy just making a point that you never seem to see a drivers POV.
1. Because they don’t have to, its not a rule. tbh some drivers arent great at reversing either.On a road busy at a certain time of day they may go in nose first because its easier and quicker than stopping on the main road so they can reverse in. Its called traffic.
2.That person may have started reversing when there was no oncoming traffic in the cycle lane so thay backed into it to get a view. and then they ae waiting. They could have come out a few more feet tbh and blocked the cycle lane completely
nicmason wrote:
I do get driven to places and do empathise with the drivers point of view at times, but to my mind, the most important factor is ensuring safety of road users. My wife drives, but as we don’t have a drive I can’t really share any insights there. My mother-in-law does have a drive and is always complaining about how her neighbours are parked in awkward places which makes reversing into her drive difficult. She always reverses in as where her drive is she would have next to no visibility if she was to try reversing out.
1. Yes, it’s not a rule, but if you’re sharing a vehicle with someone then it just kinda makes sense for all drivers to reverse into the parking space when possible (exceptions for when you’re busting to use the toilet etc). It reminds me of learning to SUBA dive – there’s lots of little tips and tricks which aren’t “rules” but make things easier and safer (e.g. put your snorkel on the left side of your head).
2. Possibly, but in this instance the driver doesn’t seem to have read the road very well. They’d probably have been able to hear the oncoming driver if not see them. I would suggest a handily placed mirror would make reversing out safely a lot easier (a temporary measure is someone standing watching out for a suitable gap).
nicmason wrote:
Two things.
1. Not all cars are continually driven by the same person so it may not have been parked by the person getting the car out .
2. So you have never ever driven nose first into parking place in your whole life even when for some unknown reason it may have been expedient at the time ?
[/quote]
Just boils down to can’t be arsed though.
hirsute wrote:
[quote/]
Don’t you just hate it when someone airlifts your car into your drive?— hirsute
Two things.
1. Not all cars are continually driven by the same person so it may not have been parked by the person getting the car out .
2. So you have never ever driven nose first into parking place in your whole life even when for some unknown reason it may have been expedient at the time ?
— nicmason Just boils down to can’t be arsed though.[/quote]
And you have never done that ?
nicmason wrote:
And you have never done that ?
[/quote]I’m sure at some point I couldn’t be arsed. That is not a valid excuse though.
nicmason wrote:
Two things.
1. Not all cars are continually driven by the same person so it may not have been parked by the person getting the car out .
2. So you have never ever driven nose first into parking place in your whole life even when for some unknown reason it may have been expedient at the time ?
[/quote]No, I haven’t, ever. I always, always reverse into a drive or parking area. It is all but impossible, and dangerous, to reverse out of a driveway into traffic on a public highway. It is also lazy driving.
Common sense, also.
Ironic that the person in the Volvo reversing out over the pavement into the cycle lane, has cycle carriers on their car roof.
Not really very bad driving,
Not really very bad driving, obviously a more considerate aware driver would have forseen the situation, but all ends up OK without any last minute crazy manoeuvre from the cyclist.
A good example of the need to be aware.
That’s not a cycle lane, it’s
That’s not a cycle lane, it’s the gutter, which is why I don’t ride in the bloody things. I’m happy to ride in a fit-for-purpose and properly maintained cycle lane but, let’s be honest here, such things don’t normally exist outside central London.
In saying this, Cardiff City Council has just spent a mountain of money on a new, segregated cycle lane. It’s great – wide, nice surface, raised kerbs to protect from cars. Trouble is, they built it on a quiet, wide street that hardly anyone uses to get from A to B. People want to use the most direct route and not faff about with detours. The road that people do use is narrower and much busier with traffic, which is why the Council didn’t choose it for their ‘flagship’ cycle lane. There’s actually plenty of space on this (non-residential) road but this is currently taken up on both sides by parked cars (so effectively 4 lanes wide), and taking parking space from drivers, even non-residents, is a vote loser. Hence the decision to opt for the quiet, nobody uses it, street instead. Cardiff CC’s plan is to extend the new lane to the north of the city. Great. Trouble is, it’s a higgledy-piggledy, indirect route that will be ignored. This will lead to the inevitable complaints of “waste of (my tax) money, they don’t use it”. And so on……
You can’t really expect the
You can’t really expect the average motorist to look beyond the end of the bonnet.
Although I would not have squeezed into that gap.
nicmason, you do seem very
nicmason, you do seem very forgiving to drivers not being arsed, but appear to insist that cyclists are better than perfect at all possible times.
ktache wrote:
Not at all . I just think that cyclists need to react to traffic conditions as much as car drivers.
nicmason wrote:
But all of your criticism has been for the cyclist, not on the behavior of the motorists.
ktache wrote:
Trying to steer clear of the group think that lives on here.
nicmason wrote:
I think we have to be better than drivers not because we have to be perfect but because of self-preservation. When riding my attention-o-meter is turned up to 11. Most drivers, from my daily commuting experience, can’t be bothered to dial in a 3. They’re barely awake, some of ’em. Plus there have been plenty of times when I know I have right of way, and/or the driver is being a dick, but carrying on regardless would be most unwise. It is what it is.
nicmason wrote:
And by ‘traffic conditions’ you mean ‘the unalterable behaviour of drivers’ – who in your world are a force of nature, that are not subject to any kind of moral judgement. You clearly see the world as belonging to motorists, with the rest of us just obliged to work around them. You never explain why everyone else is supposed to share this view, though.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Well I would say live in the world as it is not how you think it should be. And btw imo traffic consists of everything going on . So pedestrians cyclists cars lorries obstructions. See the whole picture for your safety. This video posted as a car problem is nothing of the sort. It’s just poor cycling failing to react to events.
nicmason wrote:
I dont think its fair to say that was poor cycling, its one you could ride differently for sure, that would lessen the overall risk to you I think, as you are relying on the reversing car having spotted both you and Volvo and stop moving, which isnt a given as the left rear passenger side is the hardest to see clearly from the drivers seat, but theres no right or wrong answer to how to ride that in my view.
When reversing out of
When reversing out of driveways it’s OK to drive over ank kill old people
https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2019/03/woman-cleared-of-killing-pensioner-when-reversing/
but not always,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32504804
but of course, that one was foolish, had proper remorse and actually plead guilty.
ktache wrote:
And your point is ?
Is that the cycling equivalent of Jeremy Clarkson talking about cyclists.
nicmason wrote:
My point is that when drivers are reversing out of driveways they might want to pay a bit of attention. They are driving over pavements and into carriageways.
Given that it is a pants
Given that it is a pants cycle lane and that the person driving the ugly lumpen Volvo brick shithouse, shouldn’t be reversing it into live traffic.
But if someone encroaches into your lane, you shouldn’t expect to automatically have a free pass to moving into another lane. I’d like to think that were I the driver of the blue car I’d have had a bit more awareness of the vulnerable road user and given space, especially following a polite request, but ultimately the cyclist here had plenty of time to solve the situation with some judicious speed control.
Nice to see a range of
Nice to see a range of opinions and a little restraint-not the usual echo chamber.
Driver on the road was
Driver on the road was passing on zigzags, before you even get to the reversing driver.
vonhelmet wrote:
but overtaking a cyclist on the zig zags is not illegal.
Im all for cyclists’ safety being a higher priority and some of the videos posted on this site demonstrate truly shocking, appallingly selfish and dangerous driving. This one is not quite there in my mind.
Yes, the Volvo should leave more room when overtaking. Yes the driver should anticipate a little further ahead regarding road hazards and spot the car reversing out of the drive. Yes the reversing driver should reverse into the drive if they can to make getting back out onto the road easier and safer. Yes, that driver should consider use of a banksman if anyone else in the house was available.
But, the cyclist needs to be more aware of the hazards ahead too and adjust their riding appropriately. As cyclists we all want to maintain momentum, but sometimes that is not appropriate we need to adjust to the conditions and dynamically changing situation that is appearing ahead.
if you are looking far enough down the road using your hazard perception then earlier, safer road positioning could be achieved. In this instance, the cyclist is almost moving at the rate of the passing traffic. Why not move out with an appropriate hand signal into primary position before the overtaking car passes? Do it with confidence and purpose and the blue Volvo would have to slow and maintain his position behind the cyclist until they passed the hazard.
As this was not done the situation developed quite quickly into a ‘pinch’ for the cyclist with small quickly diminishing. Sure the Volvo should have stayed behind, but it didn’t. So why not adjust your speed to fall in behind the Volvo once it had started it’s inappropriate overtake?
Yes, the driver is still a cock, but the road is full of cocks, some of them on pushbikes. It’s the real world and our cycling utopia is still a very long way from becoming reality, so we all know that a large number of drivers are going to be cocks and we are the vulnerable ones. Ride appropriately and think self preservation. Tell him he’s a cock at the traffic lights rather than trying to have the ‘I’m right’ conversation as the road space diminishes in front of you.
PP
Pilot Pete wrote:
but overtaking a cyclist on the zig zags is not illegal.
Im all for cyclists’ safety being a higher priority and some of the videos posted on this site demonstrate truly shocking, appallingly selfish and dangerous driving. This one is not quite there in my mind.
Yes, the Volvo should leave more room when overtaking. Yes the driver should anticipate a little further ahead regarding road hazards and spot the car reversing out of the drive. Yes the reversing driver should reverse into the drive if they can to make getting back out onto the road easier and safer. Yes, that driver should consider use of a banksman if anyone else in the house was available.
But, the cyclist needs to be more aware of the hazards ahead too and adjust their riding appropriately. As cyclists we all want to maintain momentum, but sometimes that is not appropriate we need to adjust to the conditions and dynamically changing situation that is appearing ahead.
if you are looking far enough down the road using your hazard perception then earlier, safer road positioning could be achieved. In this instance, the cyclist is almost moving at the rate of the passing traffic. Why not move out with an appropriate hand signal into primary position before the overtaking car passes? Do it with confidence and purpose and the blue Volvo would have to slow and maintain his position behind the cyclist until they passed the hazard.
As this was not done the situation developed quite quickly into a ‘pinch’ for the cyclist with small quickly diminishing. Sure the Volvo should have stayed behind, but it didn’t. So why not adjust your speed to fall in behind the Volvo once it had started it’s inappropriate overtake?
Yes, the driver is still a cock, but the road is full of cocks, some of them on pushbikes. It’s the real world and our cycling utopia is still a very long way from becoming reality, so we all know that a large number of drivers are going to be cocks and we are the vulnerable ones. Ride appropriately and think self preservation. Tell him he’s a cock at the traffic lights rather than trying to have the ‘I’m right’ conversation as the road space diminishes in front of you.
PP— vonhelmet
You comment has no point other than you trying to tell me how much more technically proficient you are than the cyclist in the video, or to patronisingly give unasked-for advice to others. I don’t care about your elite skills, sorry. I want safer roads, better behaviour by those who can endanger others, and hence more active travel and fewer cars. Your roadcraft skills are of no relevance to that.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
but whether we like it or not, passing a cyclist on zig zags is not a direct traffic offence (I still think it should fall under driving without due care & attention but Ive yet to find a police force willing to pursue that) so whether you are an elite roadcraft skiller or a total novice makes no difference to that,and at the very least knowing that point should mean you arent relying on traffic to be complying with it,and maybe that alters the approach we should take around crossings.
I dont know about the rest of it,thats one of those ones where lots of things suddenly line up and you cant second guess at what point in real time youd have realised the full picture & my view is probably heavily influenced because I dont think Id have made it through that gap, so Id have chosen to brake and conceed to the volvo.
whether you think thats the right thing or not, I have enough near misses to deal with where I dont get that choice to do something differently, Im not interested in adding to the burden of those with the ones I can.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
but overtaking a cyclist on the zig zags is not illegal.
Im all for cyclists’ safety being a higher priority and some of the videos posted on this site demonstrate truly shocking, appallingly selfish and dangerous driving. This one is not quite there in my mind.
Yes, the Volvo should leave more room when overtaking. Yes the driver should anticipate a little further ahead regarding road hazards and spot the car reversing out of the drive. Yes the reversing driver should reverse into the drive if they can to make getting back out onto the road easier and safer. Yes, that driver should consider use of a banksman if anyone else in the house was available.
But, the cyclist needs to be more aware of the hazards ahead too and adjust their riding appropriately. As cyclists we all want to maintain momentum, but sometimes that is not appropriate we need to adjust to the conditions and dynamically changing situation that is appearing ahead.
if you are looking far enough down the road using your hazard perception then earlier, safer road positioning could be achieved. In this instance, the cyclist is almost moving at the rate of the passing traffic. Why not move out with an appropriate hand signal into primary position before the overtaking car passes? Do it with confidence and purpose and the blue Volvo would have to slow and maintain his position behind the cyclist until they passed the hazard.
As this was not done the situation developed quite quickly into a ‘pinch’ for the cyclist with small quickly diminishing. Sure the Volvo should have stayed behind, but it didn’t. So why not adjust your speed to fall in behind the Volvo once it had started it’s inappropriate overtake?
Yes, the driver is still a cock, but the road is full of cocks, some of them on pushbikes. It’s the real world and our cycling utopia is still a very long way from becoming reality, so we all know that a large number of drivers are going to be cocks and we are the vulnerable ones. Ride appropriately and think self preservation. Tell him he’s a cock at the traffic lights rather than trying to have the ‘I’m right’ conversation as the road space diminishes in front of you.
PP
— Pilot Pete You comment has no point other than you trying to tell me how much more technically proficient you are than the cyclist in the video, or to patronisingly give unasked-for advice to others. I don’t care about your elite skills, sorry. I want safer roads, better behaviour by those who can endanger others, and hence more active travel and fewer cars. Your roadcraft skills are of no relevance to that.— vonhelmet
Woah there fluffy, have a chill pill. As others have pointed out, it is nothing to do with ‘more technically proficient skills’, it is to do with reading the road ahead. We all see drivers who seem incapable of doing this (which is a requirement in the driving test) and this is an example of exactly that by both the drivers involved.
This lead to poor decision making by both the drivers.
However, the cyclist could also improve his road skills by better anticipation. As is commonly banded around, no point being in the right if you end up in the ambulance on your way to A&E. I reckon if you showed a judge the footage and asked for an expert opinion about blame etc he would come to a similar conclusion.
So try not to get overheated about the cyclist always being in the right (he was) but try and use this video to learn something about real world conditions and suitable actions if you want to survive on the roads…
PP
the driver of the reversing
the driver of the reversing volvo could have rolled forward back into the driveway to allow the cyclist to safely pass … very easy and no big deal..and to add to the “don’t get forget most cyclists also drive” list of why that is an unhelpful statement….reckon that’s a bike rack on the roof(?)
Drivers pulling out of
Drivers pulling out of driveways rarely even bother to even check for pedestrians on the pavement they are driving over. I don’t know what the law says, but really such drivers should have the lowest possible priority, with the obligation to give way to everything else, up to and including a pigeon strolling along the pavement.
Crap cycle lane made everything worse, but that’s pretty much a given.
Still annoyed at the homemade sign I saw someone had put up on a road with lots of driveways, instructing parents to keep a hold of their children on ‘our’ pavement because of the cars pulling out.
So yeah, the overtaking driver could have been more alert and considerate, but primarily I blame the existence of such driveways in the first place. Just ‘cos you have a big house with a car parking place shouldn’t give you the right to constantly inconvenience/endanger those actually using thoroughfares for their intended purpose. If you can’t pull out of your driveway without causing problems for others, you shouldn’t be allowed to have one.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
If I understand it correctly, having a dropped kerb grants you right of access (because, as we all know, its otherwise illegal to drive across the footway).*
It doesn’t grant you any sort of priority, so you give way to anything/anyone else on the footway, before then giving way to anything else using the roadway.
Pedestrians? Give way. Cyclists (if its shared use)? Give way. Elderly folks and women with pushchairs? Give way.
I don’t know where it stands on errant pigeons.
*Interesting fact: no dropped kerb, no right of access. All those householders who pay to convert their front gardens into car storage but who don’t get the council to put in a dropped kerb? No right of access… They’re breaking the law every time they drive into or out of their garden.
brooksby wrote:
Not only the law, it’s very visible in most cases that they are also breaking the paving stones!
It just goes to show how crap
It just goes to show how crap most cycling infrastructure is and why you shouldn’t use it. That cycle lane serves no purpose. If you use it you’re giving drivers carte blanche to pass you so long as they’re outside that line, and then it forces you into the path of drivers leaving their drives.
Have I managed to see the
Have I managed to see the same video as everyone else?
This is no crash video.
The cyclist has submitted a video of incompetent driving and drivers.
Both the reversing driver and the driver attempting the overtake put the cyclist in a dangerous position, the cyclist responded and used their skills to avoid an impact.
The cyclist was both right and not dead. Or needing medical attention.
Then the motorist who was attempting to overtake the slowed their ever so important journey in an oppertunity to argue the toss after slight critisism, thought better of it, speeded off, probably in order to join the awating queue of traffic momentarily sooner.
ktache wrote:
They weren’t overtaking the cyclist. They where in a different lane.
nicmason wrote:
It’s still overtaking even if you are in a different lane. It’s not overtaking if you’re on a different road, so I can see where the confusion has arisen – a lane can be a type of road, but not in this case. Hope this helps.
vonhelmet wrote:
Have I managed to see the same video as everyone else?
This is no crash video.
The cyclist has submitted a video of incompetent driving and drivers.
Both the reversing driver and the driver attempting the overtake put the cyclist in a dangerous position, the cyclist responded and used their skills to avoid an impact.
The cyclist was both right and not dead. Or needing medical attention.
Then the motorist who was attempting to overtake the slowed their ever so important journey in an oppertunity to argue the toss after slight critisism, thought better of it, speeded off, probably in order to join the awating queue of traffic momentarily sooner.
— vonhelmet They weren’t overtaking the cyclist. They where in a different lane.— nicmasonIt’s still overtaking even if you are in a different lane. It’s not overtaking if you’re on a different road, so I can see where the confusion has arisen – a lane can be a type of road, but not in this case. Hope this helps.— ktache
In the general sense of the word,yes,but according to the South Australian drivers handbook,Overtaking means to move into the lane to the left or right to pass the vehicle ahead. Given the standardization of road rules,this would be an accepted definition in many areas.YMMV.
Hope this helps.
Argus Tuft wrote:
South Australian drivers handbook? You realise we have our own Highway Code?
vonhelmet wrote:
Not really. And that’s a problem with cycle lanes. It’s a lane, the clue is in the name.
Imo what would I have done . See the obstacle , touch the brakes , check my right,go behind the blue Volvo, go back into the cycle lane. No rabble rousing video necessary.
nicmason wrote:
How does that work on a dual carriageway where there are lanes?
I wouldn’t have trusted either driver, so I would have made the decision to get ahead or drop behind.
hirsute wrote:
How does that work on a dual carriageway where there are lanes?
I wouldn’t have trusted either driver, so I would have made the decision to get ahead or drop behind.— nicmason
Nailed it! Move to the next level.
hirsute wrote:
How does that work on a dual carriageway where there are lanes?
I wouldn’t have trusted either driver, so I would have made the decision to get ahead or drop behind.— nicmason
That’s right. Control the situation . Don’t act on the assumption someone else who may not even know you are there will do what you expect.
Your UK licence is valid in
Your UK licence is valid in Australia-hence my comment re standardization. Don’t make the common mistake of confusing dictionary meaning with legal definition.
Argus Tuft wrote:
My license is valid in Europe as well, but I’d still have to drive on the right.
vonhelmet wrote:
Your UK licence is valid in Australia-hence my comment re standardization. Don’t make the common mistake of confusing dictionary meaning with legal definition.
— vonhelmet My license is valid in Europe as well, but I’d still have to drive on the right.— Argus Tuft
OK – time for you trot out your official UK definition of “overtaking”,otherwise we’ll be here forever.
Argus Tuft wrote:
I don’t think its defined in the highway code, and you said earlier you don’t want dictionary definitions… My point in arguing with nic earlier is that you can’t say that he’s not overtaking because he’s in a different lane. By definition overtaking on a motorway, for example, entails being in a different lane.
Anyway, rule 167 of the highway code gives a list of times when you must not overtake, including “when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down” so that’s basically the end of that.
vonhelmet wrote:
Your UK licence is valid in Australia-hence my comment re standardization. Don’t make the common mistake of confusing dictionary meaning with legal definition.
— vonhelmet My license is valid in Europe as well, but I’d still have to drive on the right.— Argus Tuft
OK – time for you trot out your official UK definition of “overtaking”,otherwise we’ll be here forever.
— vonhelmet I don’t think its defined in the highway code, and you said earlier you don’t want dictionary definitions… My point in arguing with nic earlier is that you can’t say that he’s not overtaking because he’s in a different lane. By definition overtaking on a motorway, for example, entails being in a different lane. Anyway, rule 167 of the highway code gives a list of times when you must not overtake, including “when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down” so that’s basically the end of that.— Argus Tuft
I hate myself for getting involved in forum semantics.Even if you win,you lose!
Argus Tuft wrote:
I don’t think its defined in the highway code, and you said earlier you don’t want dictionary definitions… My point in arguing with nic earlier is that you can’t say that he’s not overtaking because he’s in a different lane. By definition overtaking on a motorway, for example, entails being in a different lane. Anyway, rule 167 of the highway code gives a list of times when you must not overtake, including “when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down” so that’s basically the end of that.— vonhelmet
I hate myself for getting involved in forum semantics.Even if you win,you lose! — Argus Tuft
perhaps you should limit yourself to no more than 3 posts on the same thread, and pretend that it’s just shit on the internet, not a court of law, where people might occasionally slip from the highest standards of language and use words like overtaking when they mean passing. Reading generously rather than trying to catch people out over trivia is quite a good way of reducing feelings of self-hatred.