- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Near Miss of the Day 476: Learner driver pulls onto roundabout in front of cyclist
Today’s near miss sees a learner driver pull onto a roundabout into a cyclist’s path. The driver failed to stop and so Ben reported it to South Wales Police. He says he was then told by an officer that he was at fault.
The incident occurred at the junction of Bridge Street and Bridge Road in Cardiff. Ben was going straight on when a motorist in a British School of Motoring (BSM) car pulled out in front of him.
Ben said he was told by an officer over the phone that, "the driver entered the roundabout first so there is nothing we can do as you are at fault."
Ben said: “In my opinion the force failed to acknowledge dangerous driving, failing to give way to the right, failing to stop and failing to report an incident.
“Disappointed is an understatement and I think this response is very telling of the force’s attitude towards cyclists and other vulnerable users of the road.”
> 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 [at] 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.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 2 hours 41 min ago
Radar tells me their closing speed, if they are slowing and how far away. Then I decide to say a prayer. The change of light pattern is incidental.
- lonpfrb 3 hours 1 min ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 3 hours 27 min ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 4 hours 13 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 4 hours 41 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 22 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 6 hours 1 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 6 hours 58 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 8 hours 14 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
95 comments
From the article : "Ben said he was told by an officer over the phone that, "the driver entered the roundabout first so there is nothing we can do as you are at fault.""
So, if this is what he said, is the officer wrong? Should he have said "You were approaching the roundabout too fast so you are at fault".
I think stating the car entered first is not a true judgement, however the cyclist going a slower speed, or the car not braking would have meant we wouldn't have seen it. As I have mentioned though, most Police will wash their hands of any accident on one unless there is a real egregious breach of the law. For me it was the driver not stopping after he took me out. If he had stopped and I had taken it to the Police still, I don't think they would have done anything more. (For context of mine, imagine the video above but the car pulling across me at speed at the point the cyclist stops. )
One of the great safety advances of recent years, and for me the great safety advance in urban riding, is the combination of disc brakes and hands-almost-always-on-the-lever brakes. In my case its the Sora 9 speed levers and TRP cable discs. You see the vehicle ahead a long way away, and you have ample time to not run onto it. The point about NMotD is to display the untoward effects of drivers not caring how close they come to the cyclist.
There's a tiresome amount of trolling and/or unfortunately ignorant ranting going on here. Mini-roundabout rules (No.5 in the following link, referring to diagram 611.1 - the mini-roundabout sign https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/16/made):
"A vehicle entering the junction must must give priority to vehicles coming from the right at the transverse road marking shown in diagram 1003.3 associated with the sign or, if the marking is not for the time being visible, at the junction"
No mention of whether they are "on the roundabout" or not "on the roundabout" - if anything is coming from the right, you must give it priority.
It's notable that every other section of the regulations regarding junctions adds "no vehicle shall cross the transverse line ... so as to be likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any other vehicle or to cause that driver to change the speed or course of his vehicle in order to avoid an accident."
This is a general principle applied to all junctions. In the case of the mini-roundabout there appears to be a drafting error in which this rule is applied mistakenly to the island/arrow road markings rather than to the traverse line. ("No vehicle shall proceed past the marking shown in diagram 1003.4"). But you only need to look at all the other sections - and/or have an ounce of common sense - to realise that the clear intent is that this rule should apply at mini-roundabouts as well as at any other junction.
Oh no. Back around to this being a disussion of whether it is a small roundabout or a mini roundabout. (Sign v wrong street marking and island furniture.)
...and if we're going to descend into legal pedantry, the TSRGD 2002 have been revoked and replaced by the TSRGD 2016 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/19/made)
If we are indeed going to descend to that level of pedantry, then I would note that the 2016 regs make the position even clearer:
"no vehicle is to proceed past the [white circle] marking in a manner, or at a time, likely to endanger any person, or to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident"
However, my point was that any sensible person should be able to tell that this was always the intention of the regs to start with, even when they weren't as clear as the updated ones in fact are.
I think I agree with you (I gave up reading all the other comments on this article so not entirely sure who's said what previously...) - my point was simply that if you (or anyone) is going to use legislation to win an argument, it should be done so correctly!
It's signed as a mini roundabout - and therefore should be approached and entered as such regardless of whether the council have got the street furniture "correct" or not.
Also the point was very much not to be "legally pedantic" - but to apply the clear intention in creating the rules/regulations i.e. proceed with primary regard to safety of others.
Those who are saying "the driver was right" on the basis of some microscopic inspection of who was at which position at which time are missing the whole point of the Highway Code/Traffic Signs&Regulations - which are to promote safe use of the roads.
The general principle of "don't enter a junction if doing so will cause someone to have to brake to avoid an accident" is universally applicable to all junctions, even if happens to be misapplied/missed out in some particular instance or other.
This is not a mini-roundabout. The signing and setup does not appear to meet the required standards for a roundabout either.
Would suggest that the Council need to ensure that the road layout is appropriate and meets the required standards. In this example though the bicycle rider should probably have slowed.
This is not a mini-roundabout. The signing and setup does not appear to meet the required standards for a roundabout either.
Would suggest that the Council need to ensure that the road layout is appropriate and meets the required standards. In this example though the bicycle rider should probably have slowed.
I'd also like to add that like any road user, the cyclist should have altered their behaviour as it was a driver under instruction.
Absolute nonsense from the cyclist. It's a give way not a stop. If you think of it as a gate, the cyclist wasn't near the gate so the driver could proceed, the cyclist should have altered his behaviour due to traffic in the roundabout.
Stopped and then laid the bike down. What was that, a dive? Maybe you're not as good a rider as you think you are and should drop the clipless pedals.
Learner was on the roundabout before you. Slow down as you approach roundabouts, you clearly didn't. be considerate to others, especially learners. Not all new drivers are perfect.
Poor cycling, blames others for his own failings.
This incident is clearly as a result of learner instructor and learner driver incompetence and negligence, carrying out a potentially risky manoeuvre that is harmful to all vulnerable 2wheeled road users.
Both having failed to give way, as required to traffic on their right before entering the roundabout.
And, not only that, having commited to enter the roundabout and, instead of continuing their manoeuvre through the roundabout, they also STALLED dead and presented themselfs a hazardous obstruction into the path of a vulnerable road user - competent motorists would avoid this.
There's a possibility of hesitation by learner instructor and learner driver and is one root cause of RTC and incidents such as these.
Which brings round to the question, will all road users drive/cycle to expect the unexpected? Drive with care and attention, stop within the distance of they can see ahead?
In this instance the rider was riding without due car and attention- if he was paying attention he would seen the learner, slowed in the anticipation that they might and did do something unexpected.
How many learners are involved in collisions? Or are you making this up?
A road user not anticipating that a learner driver, with big red L-plates etc on the car, might do something 'unexpected'* is surely the height of stupidity.
* a learner stalling at a junction/RAB is not my definition of unexpected.
As we are talking about Roundabouts, I just spotted this about the new Cambridge one in the ICYMI section of the Beeb.
TBH, the driver they interviewed sounds like he shouldn't be on the roads if he gets dizzy looking left and right. And he hasn't stated what is daughter stopped using it for. Walking, cycling, maybe driving?
This is part of rule 185
"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"
I can't find anywhere that it says give way to traffic already on the roundabout but I seem to remember this was once the case.
Having said that it's a learner driver.
Once on the roundabout, the priority changes to who is there first. In this instance the rider would have (still) been at fault because he would have collided with the side of the car highlighting the fact the car was there first.
This particular roundabout layout having a greater distance to the island from the cyclist side would always favour the vehicle getting onto the roundabout first.
Common sense, you follow or wait for the vehicle in front to clear your path before proceeding.
There are endless example s where a roundabout favours priority access just by its layout. You cant complain if the other road user gets there first
Thank you for that. It would make a lot of sense. Can you tell me which rule you got that from.
The only place I found it was in a government pdf about mini roundabouts, where it said (and referenced to legislation):
"Vehicles entering the junction must give way to vehicles approaching from the right, circulating the central island." (my emphasis).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
That makes sense on normal roundabout, where anything of interest is already circulating on the roundabout. And the Highway Code says you should treat mini roundabouts exactly the same as normal roundabouts - ignoring the fact that they are obviously not the same.
I think it is something that should be addressed in the HC review, since clearly there is confusion and a difference between custom & practice and the official rules, which is not helpful.
That would be the Pauli Exclusion Principal
So are you saying if I had entered the roundabout from the other direction and was using it to go back on myself, if the learner had pulled the same manouvre as I turned the corner near the cyclists entrance, it is fine as he was at that specific section first?
Once on the roundabout you have priority over all junctions unless the other user can get on in front of you before you get to their junction. That's what roundabouts do allow for quicker access.
BUT common sense prevails and care is always at the forefront of each manoeuvre.
You can't come barreling onto a roundabout and expect a seamless exit all the time.
This has to be the essential consideration, before any thoughts about who has legal right of way etc etc.
The video is very wideangle and distorts perspective, making the island look further away than in reality. Watching it repeatedly, both vehicles reach the give way markings at the same time. If the cyclist had been in a car I bet the learner would have chosen to give way. I'd certainly have done so, as the vehicle is approaching from my right and I have a tight turn to make at low speed (check the street view from their approach). Also, if I was turning right there I'd expect people to 'barrel through' and consider this before I join the roundabout.
As there is no collision and the cyclist apparently fell over because they couldn't unclip I'm not surprised the police weren't interested. It's a non-event and some bruised pride but hopefully a useful lesson for both parties.
Surely any traffic already on the roundabout is by definition coming from your right. Besides you failed to complete the guidance in rule 185 which goes on to say, "watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all."
It looks confusing from what i can gather!
From the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002 Schedule 6 the long dash on the approach to the roundabout used to mean that priority should be given to traffic already circulating on the roundabout. However, this marking is not present in the Traffic Signs Regulations 2016 Schedule 9. Only the shorter stubbier markings for mini-roundabouts have priority for those already circulating.
What i can find instead (in the same schedule) is the priority to the right sign (part 2 item 6), which according to part 7 paragraph 5 means what you would expect (no mention of whether traffic approaching from the right is on or off the roundabout).
From Google Streetview, it looks like the driver passed such a sign on the approach to the roundabout.
It's still there, but been moved to schedule 11...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/4/made
That part 7 paragraph 5 references the markings for a mini-roundabout, which do still refer to traffic circulating. We've ascertained the road layout and signage do not conform to the regs, but whether it's the standard roundabout give way markings or the mini one, they both refer to 'traffic circulating'.
The way to think about this is a roundabout is a separate carriageway, so joining a roundabout is akin to turning into a side road from a main road. If there is traffic already in that side road (peds crossing etc.) then they have priority.
This is all very interesting, but is missing the point that regardless of who has "priority", all entry to the roundabout is subject to the over-riding principle of "no vehicle is to proceed past the [white circle] marking in a manner, or at a time, likely to endanger any person, or to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident".
The driver clearly did not meet this bar - whether or not the cyclist was "on the roundabout", they should not be proceeding if it's going to cause someone else to have to brake/swerve to avoid an accident.
It's quite plausible that the cyclist could be said to be not meeting this threshold also - especially as the car is a learner, they should be slowing to take into account that the driver might proceed in error.
Pages