Today’s near miss is a classic case of ‘sorry mate, I didn’t see you’ – otherwise known as SMIDSY. The driver pulls out of a side road right in front of an oncoming cyclist.
The incident occurred during Astrit’s commute yesterday on High Road (A1000), heading towards Easy Finchley Tube Station. The vehicle pulled out of Creighton Avenue.
It’s gloomy footage and the obvious question is did Astrit have lights?
“I did have lights on. And a hi-vis helmet and a high-vis jersey.”
> 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.
33 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 337: Driver pulls out in front of ‘invisible’ cyclist”
Obviously the view of him was
Obviously the view of him was obstructed by the street bollard – ride further out !
hirsute wrote:
I’m hoping that was ironic. The driver joining the road has an absolute duty to make sure that there is no traffic on the main road; there is also the little clue of the cycle lane right in front of them. The cyclist had lights and hi-viz, but was still invisible. Either their eyesight is not good enough to be allowed to drive, or they aren’t competent to drive.
burtthebike wrote:
Well the first bit I thought was obviously ironic given the bollard is below window height. Drivers come up with all sorts of bollocks though
I would have riden a bit further out to give a bit more escape room in case of someone failing to give way. This has saved me a few times (twice by a few cm).
hirsute wrote:
Except the driver has a clear view to his right, and isn’t level with the bollard until 4 seconds into the video. (By which time he has already overshot the junction.) Even then his eyeline appears to be above the bollard.
Drivers who approach junctions too fast like this regularly scare the shit out of me, and this driver proves that I’m scared with good reason.
I’ve had exactly the same happen to me, I suspect deliberately, only going downhill at some speed.
There should be a maximum approach speed to give way and stop lines.
pockstone wrote:
Someone at work said they found their children’s driving to be scary based on their approach speed to junctions, but apparently it is how they are taught these days (anyone able to confirm or deny this ?).
This is why I’m nearly always central at these sorts of junctions.
hirsute wrote:
There’s not a lot of the finer skills taught.Stop behind the line,of course. Harsh braking resulting from too fast an approach would be a minor error. Wheel lockup,a fail. Very basic stuff.
Argus Tuft wrote:
Thanks, I have to say I have noticed a lot more faster approaches to junctions than there used to, so it kinda made sense. Then again, it could simply be confirmation bias.
hirsute wrote:
Judging by a lot of driving I see, they don’t get taught very much at all.
Sorry I missed your (subtle) irony earlier, and yes, it doesnt hurt to ride wide to be seen, especially with badly placed street furniture like the railings in the video.
pockstone wrote:
Quite right. We haven’t got enough laws, what we need is more laws. We should legislate away anything that causes annoyance to anybody.
Welcome to Utopia.
hirsute wrote:
Absolutely. Lets start a campaign to get councils to put cycle lanes right in the middle of the road instead of hiding them behind bollards where drivers can’t see them without actually looking.
fizrar6 wrote:
A few lanes are in the middle of the road, then there are the glorious lanes in between the parking bays and the main road. Gotta love a pincer attack.
Irrespective of not ‘noticing
Irrespective of not ‘noticing the cyclist’, he was cutting it close to taking out the motor scooter that passed as well.
The _Kaner wrote:
True. Disco Dick doesn’t come to a full stop until 7 seconds, and the motorbike is level with his front end just 2 seconds after that. Given their relative speeds, if he’d continued his move, he’d have had one injured cyclist and one possibly dead motorcyclist on his hands.
pockstone wrote:
And if your Uncle had tits he’d be your Auntie.
Argus Tuft wrote:
Possibly true, and if the driver (maybe somebody’s uncle, maybe somebody’s auntie) had taken the time to look they wouldn’t have made both the cyclist and the motorcyclist take evasive action.
Just because nobody gets hit doesn’t make shit driving OK.
pockstone wrote:
Show me where I said it was OK. When you’re trying to deal with a driving event leave “if” out of it.Assess the situation as it occurred. Anything else is speculation
Argus Tuft wrote:
OK , Facts. Driver pulls out of junction without proper observation. Has to make enough of an emergency stop to dip the front end. Ends up making two road users take evasive action. (The scooter seemed to be riding pretty wide) Shit driving. I’m sure we can agree on that.
One problem with such driving, and close overtakes particularly, is that it doesn’t take into account a lot of ‘ifs’ like potholes and grates that may cause a cyclist to lose control, or wet and slick surfaces that may make it harder to stop than expected. You’re right that the ‘if s’ are irrelevant after the fact, but a good driver should have them in mind before the fact.
I’d call it a fail to give
I’d call it a fail to give way.It’s nowhere near a “near miss” The bike stops 10 feet short of the car.
“It’s gloomy footage and the
“It’s gloomy footage and the obvious question is did Astrit have lights?”
Is it, why, based on the video quality? It’s clearly daylight, the street lights are not lit so there’s no requirement to have lights, so you’re wrong to ask that as an obvious question, the answer by the cyclist is totally irrelevant, the motorist is 100% in the wrong whether they had lights/hi-vis or not, what is the bloody matter with you!
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
You can’t go by the street light being on or off for daylight. The law in ontario Canada is half hour before after sunrise or sunset. If the bike never had his lights on with is also the law for bikes then he be at fault a bike has to follow the same rules as a car in Ontario
Mybike wrote:
I didn’t realise East Finchley tube station was in Ontario.
Mybike wrote:
“It’s gloomy footage and the obvious question is did Astrit have lights?”
Is it, why, based on the video quality? It’s clearly daylight, the street lights are not lit so there’s no requirement to have lights, so you’re wrong to ask that as an obvious question, the answer by the cyclist is totally irrelevant, the motorist is 100% in the wrong whether they had lights/hi-vis or not, what is the bloody matter with you!
— Mybike You can’t go by the street light being on or off for daylight. The law in ontario Canada is half hour before after sunrise or sunset. If the bike never had his lights on with is also the law for bikes then he be at fault a bike has to follow the same rules as a car in Ontario— CyclingInBeastMode
I know it sounds crazy, but a bike in England doesn’t have to follow the rules for a car in Ontario. I was shocked when I found out.
FrankH wrote:
It doesn’t?
**starts removing the “I’m sorry” stickers and unhitches the barrel of maple syrup**
Mybike wrote:
“It’s gloomy footage and the obvious question is did Astrit have lights?”
Is it, why, based on the video quality? It’s clearly daylight, the street lights are not lit so there’s no requirement to have lights, so you’re wrong to ask that as an obvious question, the answer by the cyclist is totally irrelevant, the motorist is 100% in the wrong whether they had lights/hi-vis or not, what is the bloody matter with you!
— Mybike You can’t go by the street light being on or off for daylight. The law in ontario Canada is half hour before after sunrise or sunset. If the bike never had his lights on with is also the law for bikes then he be at fault a bike has to follow the same rules as a car in Ontario— CyclingInBeastMode
well a backward victim blaming society such as Canada would blame the cyclist for someone pulling out on them in such conditions when there is absolutely no requirement to have lights to be able to see.
Any ordinary human being with eyesight good enough to actually see can see another road user without theat road user being lit up, if you can’t then you should never be on the roads either on a bike or in a motorised vehicle. Show me some proof that having a light (which the cyclist had) and/or hi-vis (cyclist also wearing) makes any difference to safety?
As with your near neighbours, your countries and indeed citizens viewpoint on safety is massively flawed, that’s why despite increased helmet wearing and compulsary wearing in some provinces cycling deaths/injuries have not reduced despite other interventions occuring at the same time! That’s why cyclists will continue to be victim blamed and get killed/injure whilst being blamed by police for it when in actual fact the blame lies solely with those that crashed into them.
I presume you know that police/emergency vehicles get crashed into on a massively regular basis as do people on bikes despite hi-vis and flashy lights etc, why is that if they are so effective?
That’s the sort of thing that
That’s the sort of thing that is a genuine problem and well done on the cyclist for seeing what’s happening and reacting. That’s not justifying the campervan it’s that’s the cyclist kept him or herself safe.
Get that all the time on my
Get that all the time on my commute. Always covering the brakes just in case. Some junctions are worse than others, particularly the exits from the rat runs.
One thing at a time,China-I
One thing at a time,China-I didn’t say he was a good driver.You’ll see in an earlier post I called it a fail to give way.Dragging potholes and grates into it when they weren’t a factor is just obfuscation.
Close overtakes are another issue.Hopefully we’ll get to discuss them when we have an example at hand.
The driver has committed a traffic offence.You can’t say what he “Could have done”.
Typical Land/Range Rover
Typical Land/Range Rover driving standards. Most seem to think they own the road, many are twats. I had one the other week, driving towards me, he obviously didn’t like my 250 lumen flashing light, so decided to continually flash me with his twin 3000 lumen lights, whilst giving me the wanker movement with his wrist. It was very realistic, he has obviously had plenty of practise.
It’s gloomy footage because
It’s gloomy footage because the camera is pointed towards the sun causing it to underexpose the foreground. Doesn’t mean the cyclist was not visible, quite the opposite really. Just another driver with not enough patience and even less sense.
The badly driven grey
The badly driven grey behemoths lights were not on.
This is also another
This is also another demonstration of dangerous cycling infrastructure. A line painted dwn the side the road that encourages cyclists to ride closer than is safe to the kerb and makes car drivers think that that’s where cyclists should be is in no way helpful. The right place to be cycling in that situation is further out from the kerb than in the “cycle lane”. I feel very vulnerable in these situations and in most cases would prefer there to be no cycle lane. I’m a huge believer in investing in good cycling infrastructure but this sort of thing makes things worse IMO.
Would be interesting to know
Would be interesting to know what it was that finally alerted the driver to make an emergency stop? It is impossible to discount that the cyclist’s light or hi viz clothing finally caught their attention, though I do suspect that it might have been the motorcycle being in a road position where a driver is more likely to be focusing attention.
In any event, the cyclist here seemed to have the situation under control. Nice one.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Maybe the driver finished messaging (“Be home soon, love you!”) and actually looked around…