Near Miss of the Day 476: Learner driver pulls onto roundabout in front of cyclist

Velo-drone wrote:

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.

I'm not trying to defend the driver - it was a bad move. But as you say, the cyclist was not blameless in the eyes of the law either.

I'm a bit of a details nerd and the whole 'can-o-worms' around roundabout regulations is the take-away from this NMotD for me.

Very good summary.

Not a bad summary. But there is no getting away from the fact the cyclist approached WAY too fast here. There are many, many incidents of poor driver judgement by drivers on roundabouts and similar junctions which are SO much worse than this.

It might have been a minor error on the driver's (and especially instructor's) part, but to class this as dangerous driving as the cyclist has done is pretty laughable. The instructor has more liability here than the learner driver, but even so, in my view, it hardly merits a complaint to BSM?

I suspect if the Instuctor and Learner had pulled up and had a chat with the cyclist as he thought would happen (you can can just about hear him stating lets clear the junction) then I wonder if we would even have been aware it happened. 

However he wrongly thought he had the right as traffic should come from the right and wrongly thought they had left the scene of an accident without reporting it. So the next step is contacting the police to report it himself. I don't blame the cyclist fully on those assumptions as we are currently about 120 comments in and having to go into the regs rather then the Highway Code to get full answers on it and it is still disputable. 

I agree he came on slightly too fast but we also state alot on here that too fast is not being able to stop in the conditions without a collision and he managed to do that. The unclipping bit was the only thing he failed to do. 

Expect the unexpected is utterly meaningless and usually uttered by those with little understanding of roadcraft.

"Snake on a rollerskate" was my instructor's catchphrase. Meaning expect anything.

The times I have found myself in trouble are when I forgot that advice.

If you expect anything, the only conclusion is not to use the roads. There was a video here a few months ago where a BMX rider came out/over a hedge at a roundabout. Presumably those who advocate this line of thinking would, as the driver on the roundabout, anticipated this and adjusted their speed as required.
To expect a driver to brake check you on a roundabout is not something I would consider reasonable.

I guess there is a line between anticipating what could go wrong and total paranoia that would leave you afraid to come out from under the duvet for anything other than fear of sufocation.

But an active imagination:

- What if a cat runs out from under those parked cars?

- What if that big dog on the lead held by the small child sees a squirrel?

- What if that driver who hasn't appeared to look in my direction actually pulls out of the side road?

- What if that car in front is slowing down because the driver is planning on making an illegal left turn across the cycle lane?

- What if that bastard who just clipped my handlebars and that I'm now chasing after decides to brake check me?

Could help with switching to plan B when the unexpected is not quite so unexpected.

I agree with all those examples. Dogs are always a hazard, especially with those stupid extenable leads.

I think as you gain experience you know when you are approaching a hazard (and you might not even be able to articulate why you know it is*). Scanning middle and far ahead is vital as well as some discipline - making yourself slow down a bit for that blind bend making the assumption someone is just around it.

Correct positioning within a lane, particularly on roundabouts, gives you a much better escape route for drivers who can't be arsed to look properly.

What I can't see you can do much about is someone deciding to hit you or behave recklessly. I can't see how you defend against someone hellbent on a left hook (although I think Richard's bicycle book talks of a haul turn, although it looked far too hard to pull off safely to me).

* at the lights today in a car, lane 1 left and ahead, lane 2 right. As we all pull away in L1, audi comes up fast in l2 - surely he is not going to try and squeeze in front of those going ahead in l1. Don't think I need to give the answer.

I expect the unexpected at any junction, especially on my motorbike. Number of times I've had to jam all on is next to nothing because I expect drivers to do stupid shit. My roadcraft is fine thanks. Only ever had accidents from pushing on too fast in race mode , normal driving, never. Tbh I'm not sure how people manage to crash when not speeding.

Just because you cycling and going slower don't think people won't do stupid shit. Not sure what's so wrong about that.

I agree, in spite of what the hell was the instructor allowing the learner to proceed. However in this case I agree with the cops.

My old instructor, who was an ex-copper and a regular caution, always said of r/abouts "Give way to your right, don't trust the 8uggers on your left". It's one of those bits of advice that's always stuck with me, no less when I am on 2 wheels.

See I don't agree with the Police that it was the cyclist at fault. As they had both entered the island at pretty much the same time it was no ones fault. And as there was no collision, the car did not have to stay or report anything. If that had been two cars and they had collided, the insurances would have done knock for knock. (I have NCP on my insurance mainly for Roundabouts)

If the cyclist was established on there ahead of time it might have been a different story, both in health outcome and Police result.  

The road traffic act requires people to stop if an accident occurs. Section 170. It doesn't matter if they don't collide.  Imagine you swerve to avoid danger to your life and write off your vehicle because of someone else driving dangerously, do you honestly think that it's ok, in law, for the dangerous driver to just leave the scene. 
The learner committed an offence of failing to stop and of failing to report (assuming they didn't report to the police soon after this incident).

1988 RTA $170 requires drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles to stop if there is injury to another road user, or damage to another vehicle(of any kind, or damage to other property or animals. There is surely no evidence here that this was the case?...  

Except L drivers in livery marked cars are accompanied by instructors. What the hell was the instructor doing?

A couple of months ago, I was on the main road and passed a learner and instructor at a side road. Since they were indicating right, I thought "this is going to be interesting".
About 30 seconds later, the learner did a close pass on a narrow road uphill with oncoming traffic.
Result 'course or 3 points'.
I have no idea what the hell the instructor was thinking in the previous 30 seconds he/she had to plan what to do.

hirsute wrote:

Except L drivers in livery marked cars are accompanied by instructors. What the hell was the instructor doing? A couple of months ago, I was on the main road and passed a learner and instructor at a side road. Since they were indicating right, I thought "this is going to be interesting". About 30 seconds later, the learner did a close pass on a narrow road uphill with oncoming traffic. Result 'course or 3 points'. I have no idea what the hell the instructor was thinking in the previous 30 seconds he/she had to plan what to do.

The instructor might have been scratching his man sack. He might have just been spooked by something he saw, or thought he saw. He might be distracted by something such as an attractive woman or a nearby Ferarri etc. Perhaps he was arguing. Maybe he had something in his eye or he may have been having a stroke. It's not possible to know for sure but coz you asked, I decided to throw in these possibilities for your perusal. I believe the most likely one is he was scratching, adjusting or playing with his nads.

The cyclist did stop and avoided the car (but not the road).

hirsute wrote:

The cyclist did stop and avoided the car (but not the road).

Lol I thought that was funny too.

A bit of pedantry but they are not give way lines when single dashed but just to mark where the road ends/ starts. On Singled dashed you are advised to give priority but you can do what you want unless it is stupidly dangerous.  Double dashed is the Giveway and would have been the drivers responsibility to give way to the cyclist if they were there in the above video. 

Does failing that unclip constitute an accident though ?
Although I suppose that would be retrospective knowledge.