Now and again on our Near Miss of the Day series, we feature a video where a driver’s actions has resulted in their vehicle making contact with a cyclist – and that’s what we have today in this footage shot by road.cc reader Matt.
“I was cycling down Jacob’s Wells Road in Bristol, hit a traffic queue and began filtering to the ASL,” he told us.
“As I filtered on the left side, a motorist pulled out in front of me without indicating, resulting in a very minor collision between myself and her front wing.
“At the time, I was a bit shocked and I berated the motorist for not looking – she said that she simply hadn’t seen me.
“Having rewatched the footage I’m not sure who’s at fault, though – the road layout, with its on-street parking, means that drivers might not realise cyclists are filtering down the left side. And, to be fair to the driver, she seemed shocked and remorseful.”
Matt added: “I haven’t reported this incident to the police because I think the driver committed a genuine mistake, compounded by the road layout, and she seemed shocked and remorseful.”
> 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 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
46 thoughts on “Not-so-Near Miss of the Day 582: Bristol driver pulls out on cyclist”
I’m going to risk the rath
I’m going to risk the rath here but does he need to indicate if he is going straight on?
Were you indicating to undertake?
Could argue that there was a
Could argue that there was a change in lanes and was moving into another one.
Bu I think this is one of the rare occaisions where both cyclist and driver had responsibilities to avoid the collision and neither took them. Just glad it was at such low speeds that the cyclist was uninjured.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
No argument required. It was a lane change.
alansmurphy wrote:
Wrath of the pedants?
eburtthebike wrote:
You didn’t indicate that you were going to be a pedant 😉
Yes, signalling to change
Yes, signalling to change lane is required – as is checking mirror.
Cyclist was already in the left hand lane as far as I could see?
Velo-drone wrote:
That I can’t accept, there was no second lane until after the parking bay. So the cyclist could not have been in it.
At the point of impact there are not two lanes, there is one lane and the loading bay.
A slow-moving driver in slow
A slow-moving driver in slow-moving traffic should anticipate a cyclist filtering on either side, so moving left should include effective observations to check it’s safe to do so.
A cyclist filterin on either side of slow-moving vehicles should be looking ahead to check what decisions each driver they approach might be making. A split from one lanes to two (or vice versa) or the end of parked vehicles are likely points for cars to re-align. I would assume the driver may not have seen me (or be looking), so avoid passing the car at the critical point, or where they are setting off from stationary.
Indeed, better road craft
Indeed, better road craft from either would have avoided the situation.
All true, but I think
All true, but I think submitter’s mention of the road design being awful is also true. The driver is cutting across either the end of the parking or a bus stop (not entirely clear) at the point of collision. Parking that just suddenly becomes an extra lane like that is a terrible idea.
Similar happened to me along
Similar happened to me along this stretch of road a few years ago. Differences were:
There are two lanes along most of it but the bus lane stops just past the crossing so cars going ahead or left can suddenly cut across.
The car hadn’t looked like coming across as it was the second set of arrows before he did and I was actually level with his passnger side window.
There wasn’t any contact partly through me manouvring towards the curb and being further forward.
Unlike the woman in the vid above, the car decided to punishment pass me at (excessive) speed on the road near the park as well as under-taking the car ahead of it.
Quote:
I’ve had a fair few near misses with motorists coming out of that on-street parking and not looking…
Where it splits into two lanes, is an approach to a light controlled roundabout. The right lane is for right only, the left lane is for left and (more-or-less) straight on, if it helps.
The Audi on the streetview at https://goo.gl/maps/1HbWVNCY2knQyQ216 looks to be approximately where this incident took place – if you’re going left or straight on then you have to shimmy between the queue going right and the parked cars. The marked area is a ‘loading only’ space.
Quote:
Who was at fault? Er the cyclist in this incident, filtering where it wasn’t sensible or realistic to filter.
Why would someone need to indicate to go straight on?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Because they do.
The left side has parked cars, then a loading bay, then becomes the lane for left-or-straight on.
The right side, which is where cars coming down the hill are to be found, carries on to become the right-only lane for the roundabout.
If you are coming down the hill, as a cyclist or as a motorist, then you have to move over left to get in the lane for left-or-straight-on.
Yes indicating for a lane
Yes indicating for a lane change is always wise – I imagine the cyclist would not have undertaken in that case.
He also was directly behind that car for some time (maybe 10 seconds) so I can only assume the driver made no use of their rearviewmirror for at least that time to not be aware of the cyclist
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I see what you did there – of course they don’t need to signal to go straight ahead. But HC rule 133 says they do need to signal to change lanes:
[I]Lane discipline
[I]Rule 133
[I]If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.[/i]
[/i][/i]Obviously here they never thought there could be any one who needed to know, hence why bother signalling? But that’s half the point of signals, they are often for the road users you didn’t see.
Sriracha wrote:
I’d just assumed that was how it was taught in lessons nowadays? If there is ‘only’ a cyclist or ‘only’ a pedestrian, many motorists don’t seem to think that they need to know where the motorist is intending to go.
brooksby wrote:
I’ve seen the argument that signalling when there is none there is wrong as it shows the driver is not checking properly, but relying on signals.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Really? My complaint was where I’m – for example – waiting to come out of a junction, I wait for an approaching vehicle, and then they turn into that junction without signalling because there wasn’t a car behind them. It never crossed their mind that it might be helpful for me to know their intentions…
I don’t believe they changed
I don’t believe they changed lanes here.
Driver has not anticipated cyclist filtering down the inside, but cylists has not anticpated the driver may want the left lane as the road widens and one lane becomes two.
This is not a change of lane and so indicating would not be expected.
Personally I only filter past stationary cars, I do not pass moving cars on the inside. It’s too easy for them to drift laterally for any number of reasons and if they are not moving into a different lane there would be no indicating.
I don’t believe any claim by either party would be succesful here (had there been damage), with insurance considering both at fault. Luckily no harm was done, at least the cyclist has accepted the fault may not be 100% with the driver and hopefully will be more cautious.
Because they are not going
Because they are not going straight on, they are changing lane. This requires: mirror, signal, manoeuvre (when safe).
This would be instant fail & stop the test in a driving test.
That’s not to say the cyclist could not have anticipated, but they did nothing “wrong” and the driver did, even if unintentionally.
I might well have filtered here too, but if so I would tend to slow instead of just powering through in case of exactly this sort of thing.
Driver wasn’t changing lane –
Driver wasn’t changing lane – it was a single lane road.
Indicating left would have, um, indicated that they were turning left. Which they weren’t.
It was a single lane road
It was a single lane road that went into two lanes at approximately the site of the accident. How far down that section would she have needed to be before indicating would have been approriate?
(also, where does it state she was going straight on, she might have been turning left anyway at the lights).
Once the driver passes the
Once the driver passes the part where there is a line seperating the two lanes, then changing lanes applies and signalling would be required.
Unusually in this case the lane demarkation starts right at the end of the loading bay, normally as one lane becomes two the road widens then the line appears. However in this case the driver must either move into/through the parking bay or cross the line. So technically they probably should have indicated, do we know they didn’t?
Even so, most people would not indicate as the are not moving into a live lane.
So by that logic, if she had
So by that logic, if she had decided to pull over and stop in the loading bay / parking spaces earlier up, she only needed to rely on brake lights to show stopping intention and not indicate as it is not a live lane?
Velo-drone wrote:
No, based on what the video shows it wouldn’t be a test termination.
Luckily all was relatively
Luckily all was relatively slow-moving, and no harm done, but unless the driver suddenly swerved (which is difficult to decide with no front-facing), I would have thought the rider could have anticipated this situation. Filtering is fine when traffic is moving in queues, however at a point where the lane splits it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect the driver to intend exactly what you intended, and use the straight-ahead lane….
I’m with Nige on this one.
My view too. There was no
My view too. There was no lane change, the lane simply splits in two. If anything, you’d perhaps expect vehicles adopting the right turn lane to indicate right.
(which is difficult to decide
(which is difficult to decide with no front-facing)
I’m surprised there isn’t one unless the battery or memory ran out. Not many people only have the one rear one.
However as you have pointed out, there is a secondary lane appeared when the main traffic lane is one. If the lady had decided to stop and pull into a parking space/ the loading zone would you have expected her to indicate or stated no as she didn’t need to as it is only one lane there. (also it is a straight on / turn left lane, not just straight on).
I’m one in agreement that the cyclist did make a manouvre without considering there is a split there so a car might come across without indicating so probably would have benefitted with waiting behind until the traffic had stopped moving again.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I should also be clear that it is true that the driver should also have been aware of the possibility of people filtering as per HWC. However, the rider made a pretty bum move by filtering at that point
The car moved into the path
The car moved into the path of the cyclist. Drivers fault.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Cyclist undertook and moved into drivers path. Cyclists fault.
Captain Badger wrote:
Everyone thought only about what they wanted to do. Thatcher’s fault.
mdavidford wrote:
Is there no end to that woman’s villainy?
Captain Badger wrote:
No.
Captain Badger wrote:
Incorrect. Cyclist clearly did not change direction. The driver did, which caused the collision. It’s the person changing direction who is responsible for checking it is safe to do so.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
How on earth can you say that one changed direction and one didn’t when they essentially made the same action?
The road was a single lane that split into 2. They both elected to take the left lane after the split from the same single lane….. They either both changed direction or neither did.
Could the driver have been more attentive? Yes
Did it make any sense at all for the rider to squeeze between the merc and the parked car (dooring zone…..) to filter on the inside when there was a 50:50 chance that the merc (intiitally ahead) would elect to take the same lane ? Resoundingly no!
Fack me, if the roles were reversed we would have been (rightly) moaning about MGIF. This did not need to happen, and the key action that caused it was the rider filtering into an unknown (50:50) situation through a narrow gap.
Re: dooring. I was thinking
Re: dooring. I was thinking the same thing – there for the grace of God that the cyclist didn’t ride past a car that had just been parked by Chris Grayling…
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Yes, it is of course a separate risk, but I just don’t like being there under any circumstance so I’d have been unlikely tried to filter at this point due to that alone.
Captain Badger wrote:
The reaper doesn’t care whose fault it is.
FrankH wrote:
(Don’t Fear) The Reaper…..
FrankH wrote:
Similar thing, but i remember another person telling me that: “History remembers the person who’s left, not the person who was right”.
Jenova20 wrote:
I like both of those!
It’s quite obvious from the
It’s quite obvious from the angle of the Mercedes immediately after the collission that it was caused by the driver suddenly changing direction without looking giving the cyclist no time to avoid the collision.
Anyone who thinks this is the cyclist’s fault needs to surrender their driving licence. If they cannot do that then they need to read the highway code and then pass the theory test.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Shan’t
https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk
https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/filtering
“If in any doubt, don’t attempt to undertake. You will be in the driver’s blind spot. If the vehicle moves to the left a little or, even worse, begins a left turn, you may go under its wheels and die.”
“Overtake on the kerb side only if the traffic is stationary and there’s no room on the right-hand side. If in doubt, wait. Good road positioning means not hugging the kerb. So don’t dive into a riskily narrow roadside gap, even if it’s a painted-green bike lane or another cyclist has just done so. If you’re next to the kerb, you have no room to manoeuvre.”
Going under wheels and dying tends to be at the forefront of my mind when I ride in similar conditions to the video, hence I’d have slowed until I had an idea of what the car was doing at the lane split.