“You were in my blind spot!” is the excuse a motorist gave a cyclist after she pulled out on him in Bristol as he passed a row of parked cars – although as the Highway Code makes clear, that’s no excuse for failing to spot the rider.
Rule 159 of the Highway Code says:
Before moving off you should
- use all mirrors to check the road is clear
- look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)
- signal if necessary before moving out
- look round for a final check.
Move off only when it is safe to do so.
Rule 211 adds:
It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.
Jon, the road.cc reader who submitted the clip to us and plans to send it to the police, told us: “It happened in Bristol on Durdham Downs as I had reached the end of Lady’s Mile and had just turned left onto Stoke Road.
“I took my foot off the gas (so to speak) as cars came the other way in single file between parked cars before proceeding, but then had to brake as this car pulled out in front of me.
”When I caught up a traffic lights, her response was ‘You were in my blind spot, what could I do?’ to which my response was ‘Look more, then’.
“The mitigating factor for her is that she did apologise and you would not expect a car to appear so quickly from my direction given the two cars which had passed. B
“ut that completely ignores that there are loads of cyclists in Bristol who have just as much right to use the roads as cars and not be cut up.
“So my full response should have been ‘Look more then, including for cyclists!’”
> 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
89 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 588: “You were in my blind spot!””
No, that’s not a blind spot.
No, that’s not a blind spot. There’s a clear view through the windows. She didn’t look.
Hang on, there! You mean you
Hang on, there! You mean you expected her to move her head? Expected her to look for objects smaller than another car?? Are you quite mad???
A moving object can’t stay in
A moving object can’t stay in a stationary car’s blind spot for very long, especially a tiny car like that.
But she said he was in _her_ blind spot. You know, the one that covers everything from the A pillars back. She’d probably have done the same thing if it was a bus instead of a cyclist.
The highway code advises
The highway code advises against parking on the wrong side of the road, and says to take special care when pulling out in that situation if you do.
Again, and I keep saying it;
Again, and I keep saying it; the majority of motorists haven’t read their Highway Code since learning to drive – so have no idea what they can/ can’t do.
I read it reasonably often.
I read it reasonably often. Even so sometimes I’m surprised by things in it.
For the people who don’t read it, that’s just a symptom. They haven’t thought about their driving at all since they passed their tests.
I’m the same, and I also
I’m the same, and I also bought the Road Sign book just to keep me informed, as there are signs that one very rarely sees.
I agree about your last point; it’s a state of mind; most aren’t interested, and it shows.
A blind spot is as large as
A blind spot is as large as you want it to be. She only looks out for large 4 wheeled motor vehicles, so all cyclists are in her blind spot. There is some logic to this position when ‘I didn’t see you’ (because it was dark, was during a busy time on the road etc.) is regarded as an excuse/ mitigating factor. So when I was hit in the dark by the mirror on a large 4WD cutting a corner and driving on the wrong side of the road, as I was stationary waiting to leave a well lit Sainsbury’s exit road, the police accepted that he didn’t see me because it was raining and dark- despite me having a very bright Aldi flashing light mounted on my helmet and a bright Cateye front light on the bars. The police described this as “only a momentary loss of concentration”. They would have said the same if I had been mashed to pulp having my stem and bars smashed back into my stationary pelvis.
“despite me having a very
“despite me having a very bright Aldi flashing light mounted on my helmet and a bright Cateye front light on the bars”
You’re still basically invisible in those conditions.
That doesn’t excuse the driving in any way, but you have to act like you’re invisible at night if you want to stay safe. Cover yourself and your bike in flashing lights and you might have half a chance of being seen on a clear night. In the rain, bike lights are hard to pick out from all the other flashes, reflections, and points of light caused by droplets on the windscreen.
As a driver, you’re dazzled by the lights of oncoming cars to an extent where even in clear conditions, nothing but other bright lights are noticeable.
When I drive, I’m very aware of all this, and appropriately careful. Most drivers are not, they’re so bad they can fail to notice you in broad daylight. And most cyclists who don’t drive don’t realise how invisible they are at night. Leaving fault aside, it’s a recipe for trouble.
Dave Dave wrote:
Then they really ought to be considering handing in their licence to drive, oughtn’t they?
brooksby wrote:
I completely agree. The roads should be for cyclists and my car(s) only 🙂
But seriously, the UK is amongst the top dozen or so countries in the world for standard of driving tuition and skills needed to pass the test – though the top two or three are quite a long way above. Our drivers are much better than in most of the world. The level is still very, very low. Knowing when to slow down for things that might be there, very hard to see, is not the low-hanging fruit by a long way. Near Miss OTD would have gone entirely long before that gets attention 🙂
This one’s like not riding up the inside of lorries turning left. It’d be lovely if it wasn’t a problem, tech might solve it soon, but for now it’s on cyclists to realise they cannot be seen by car drivers at night in the rain.
It is a lot better to be fined (or more likely, at most, told off by a policeperson) for inappropriate lights*, or for riding on the pavement, than to be hit by a motor vehicle.
[*AFAIK, lights attached to your bike must conform to the Highway Code. Lights attached to your clothing or bag, on the other hand, are pretty much unrestricted.]
” I know about my vehicle’s
” I know about my vehicle’s blind spot, and that it is big enough to contain a vulnerable road user, so I deliberately didn’t check it by turning my head t see it was safe, but pulled out anyway.”
You’re being very unfair to
You’re being very unfair to the car. It doesn’t have a blind spot big enough for a cyclist to hide in 🙂
This one’s all on the driver not looking at all.
Dave Dave wrote:
Fair
Captain Badger wrote:
Fair— Dave Dave
The car doesn’t have a blind spot at all. The driver has blindspots that are influenced by the design of the car, the driver’s position, the adjustment of mirrors and so on.
TheBillder wrote:
Again, a very fair point!
Cyclist would have shown in
Cyclist would have shown in the wing mirror as a minimum.
Worse one I had was just like this only the driver was still chatting to his mate on the pavement.
That car had a DOOR mirror,
That car had a DOOR mirror, not a “wing” mirror.
swldxer wrote:
How can you be that pedantic, and yet think CAPITALS can be used exactly like “quotes” in the same sentence? In any case both door-mirror and wing-mirror should be hyphenated.
It’s pavlov’s dog
It’s pavlov’s dog
swldxer wrote:
Just give it up mate, Oxford dictionary, wing mirror, “a rear-view mirror projecting from the side of a motor vehicle.” Enough already.
but you KNOW what is meant.
but you KNOW what is meant. You know Uranus isn’t an actual anus, it’s just its name. Obviously cars, unlike planes, don’t have wings. Names are not always literal. Fuck sake.
What do you think is the difference between a crow, an SR71 spy plane and Zoe Saldana? On being pedantic I will point out they are all black birds but one of them can’t fly.*
*unless the one that can’t fly goes in the SR71 or something.
Titanus wrote:
Euclid would disagree about planes. Aeroplanes, though, do have wings. I would suggest that cars do as well, although placing mirrors there is uncommon these days.
What you do in the privacy of your own home with a consenting Japanese beverage is entirely up to you, but I’ll not be taking up your suggestion.
TheBillder wrote:
Obviously cars, unlike planes, don’t have wings. Names are not always literal. Fuck sake.
— TheBillder Euclid would disagree about planes. Aeroplanes, though, do have wings. I would suggest that cars do as well, although placing mirrors there is uncommon these days. What you do in the privacy of your own home with a consenting Japanese beverage is entirely up to you, but I’ll not be taking up your suggestion.— Titanus
Not only Euclid, but most carpenters as well.
I never realised that people lusted after sake in that manner, but maybe that explains why it has desirable serving temperatures?
I assume things must have
I assume things must have changed in the 34 years since I passed my driving test. Because back then I was definitely taught it was my responsibility when driving to check my blind spot.
When I did my test – over 20
When I did my test – over 20 years ago, eek – my instructor strongly emphasised situational awareness over checking the blind spot. I was expected to know what was in the blind spots at all times. He’d ask me, and I’d be expected to tell him without checking.
I was told that this was required for the test, but maybe I just really scared the instructor early on 🙂
Things have changed. These
Things have changed. These days it is accepted that it is unreasonable for people to be able to see what they don’t see, and so long as they exercise that excuse then they are free to drive into whatever they don’t see.
And, having run you over, so long as they believed you to be a sack of rubbish – and who can gainsay what it is they believed – then there is no requirement for them to stop either.
Didn’t even indicate before
Didn’t even indicate before pulling out into oncoming traffic.
I really *hate* that drivers
I really *hate* that drivers see ‘I didn’t see you’ as an excuse. It is a driver’s responsibility to ensure that they have checked if there is anything coming. ‘I didn’t see you’ is an admission that a driver has failed to do what is required of them by law.
“‘I didn’t see you’ is an
“‘I didn’t see you’ is an admission that a driver has failed to do what is required of them by law. “
Nope. It is possible to be a reasonably good driver, who cycles, knows what to look out for, and still make a mistake. I’ve done it. Hope I learned a lesson. (Fortunately didn’t hit him. Wound down my window and said ‘Oh shit, I’m really sorry, that was completely my fault’. He was more surprised by that!)
Dave Dave wrote:
How paradoxical.
You disagree with somebody by saying it’s possible to be a reasonably good driver, then examplify your argument by giving the example of somebody who, in that moment, failed to be a reasonably good driver (specifically using the word, ‘fault’).
The fact that you ‘learned a lesson’ is encouraging, but proves the point that improvement was needed.
Being a reasonably good driver is not a pass to avoid those moments when you do something wrong.
“Sorry I [nearly] hit you; but it’s OK becasue I’m a reasonably good driver.”
The point is that I’m better
The point is that I’m better than most drivers (in traffic, not in a Lewis Hamilton way), simply because I react to something like this as a narrow escape and a lesson to learn. Most people are simply oblivious. But I can – and do – make mistakes. Improvement is _always_ needed. You never stop learning.
I drive cautiously enough that I can (hopefully, most of the time) get away with one mistake – it would take two or three combining to cause a collision. If I’d been pulling out of the junction fast, trying to get ahead of traffic coming from my right, I’d have been going to fast to stop, might not have noticed the cyclist at all, etc.
There’s a really wide gap between ‘made a slight mistake’ and ‘careless driving’.
I strongly in favour of the idea that we should have much, much higher standards for the driving we permit on our roads. But even with those, we’d still need segregated cycle lanes and so-on.
Dave Dave wrote:
Along with 98% of the driving community eh?
GMBasix wrote:
Haha well said. Where I come from that’s what we call “Owned”. “Pwned” is another word for it.
Titanus wrote:
Where I come from it’s called making a fool of yourself by failing to understand a comment and then posting what is essentially random mumbling in response.
Where is that bridge then ?
Where is that bridge then ?
Dave Dave wrote:
It is, but points on a licence rather tend to focus the mind to consequences (ok, for “good” drivers such as you and me). No one’s going to lose their licence over that, but a clear message can be sent.
Literally not possible. If
Literally not possible. If you have ‘made a mistake’ you have failed to drive with ‘due care and attention’ as required by law. These are not mistakes. They are poor driving, admission that a driver’s driving fails to meet the standards required in a driving test is, by definition, an admission of fault.
fwhite181 wrote:
That’s nonsense. If you want to argue for laws like that, I’ll join you. But the laws we currently have simply don’t say anything of the sort.
I suggest reading the applicable laws. It’s shocking how little protection there is for vulnerable road users.
At least it wasn’t one of
At least it wasn’t one of those outright deliberate acts of driver terrorism. Personally I’d let this one slide wrt reporting to authorities.
Mungecrundle wrote:
And I’d respectfully disagree; how will you feel in six months time when you read about them killing a cyclist, and you could have prevented it?
Cross that bridge when I get
Cross that bridge when I get to it. I tend to avoid thinking that far into things. That mindset would make me a paranoid psycho mental super nutter bastard raving lunatic most probably.
“That person that bumped into me the other day, is he planning on doing that to me again but next time with a knife? Call the police or should I go over to his house and kill him to death? Fuck it, I’ll move to Africa and become a cactus”
See what I mean, just reading your comment has already made me a bit nutty.
Titanus wrote:
Wow! Quite an over-reaction to a fairly mundane suggestion. Someone who isn’t punished for wrong-doing with a lethat weapon, a car, will do it again until they kill someone. Exactly what your ridiculous comparison is supposed to prove, apart from the fact that you are nutty, is beyond me.
I agree. It’s annoying but
I agree. It’s annoying but not so close that it’d make me want to mutilate the driver.
Titanus wrote:
Well no. Wishing bodily harm on those that irritate us we’ll leave to another thread!
Be thankful that those of you
Be thankful that those of you living in the UK have a system within which you can file complaints against drivers and those complaints are acted upon.
Where I live no such thing is possible. 1) The police refuse to enforce bicycle laws (which are part of our motor vehicle code); and 2) they won’t enforce those laws because the prosecutor won’t proceed with them. According to local police he has “more important things to do”.
Rick55tn wrote:
Australia?
US. Chattanooga, TN, to be
US. Chattanooga, TN, to be exact.
Not my experience with
Not my experience with Chattanooga. The police chief in the City was or is still an avid cyclist. Chattanooga is also one of the few cities in the US that has bicycle officers equipped with a device to determine if the 3-foot rule has been violated. And they enforce that.
Well, that’s certainly given
Well, that’s certainly given us something to chew (chew) over.
That’s strange because many
That’s strange because many of his own officers refuse to enforce cyclings traffic laws even when infractions occur right in front of them. I’ve also spoken to a number of them and each of them says the same thing “the prosecutor won’t do anything”. So, maybe the chief needs to have a discussion with his officers.
As for enforcing th 3′ rule, not in my experience. As a matter of fact, the police often violate that rule themselves. One can hardly expect they’ll enforce it against others if they violate it themselves.
Rick55tn wrote:
Er, pardon me boys….
Indeed! lol
Indeed! lol
Rick55tn wrote:
I dare say that’s not the first time you’ve heard that….
No, sir, it isn’t. But, it’s
No, sir, it isn’t. But, it’s always pleasant to learn that it hasn’t been forgotten.
Pulling out from the r/h side
Pulling out from the r/h side of the road in a r/h drive car is particularly hazardous as the blind spots in the mirrors are huge. It is therefore essential to do so with extreem caution. So no excuse for the driver here IMO.
I have been watching these on
I have been watching these on my new feed for a while and finally decided I need to comment. This is a classic example of everything that is wrong with this series of posts and only gives cyclists a bad name. The cyclist has deliberately tried to cause an issue, although the video has been edited to keep it straight you can see from the time stamp that the rider stood up and tried to accelerate towards the car in an attempt to cause an issue. Had the rider simple slowed gently the timestamp would remain level and there would be no issue. Like most of these videos the article fails to take away the real value – eductaing cyclists to cycle safer – how they can avoid dangerous situations. That starts with an appreciation that most drivers are not cyclists but most cyclists are also drivers. That puts us as cyclists in a unique position to understand the sitution from both sides and to take control of the safety of it. And lets be honest we are far more vunerable so it is in our interest to do so. In this instance the cyclist would have had far greater view over the top of the oncoming car, whereas from the drivers perspective the cyclist would have popped out from behind the oncoming car. Even with their attempt to accelerate towards the car the cyclist still doesn’t come close to creating any genuine danger here though. Please people, cooperate with other road users, stop believing that cyclists are in some way superior and stop giving the sport a bad name for the rest of us. The roads these day are very busy and even as a driver you can’t just drive to the letter of the rules, you have to make allowances for the mistakes of others as nobody is perfect. If you cycle with this degree of agression, anger and arrogance towards other road users you will end up in an accident. I would urge that this series of articles starts to take a less high and mighty approach and starts to look at how it can help educate cyclists to avoid danagerous situations. In this instance it is obvious – be aware of when you are doing things a car cannot, take advantage of your greater sight lines and don’t try to force comntention for space. There is great potential value for cyclists in these videos but there is no value in a rant column designed to build anomosity between drivers and cyclists. You may be able to blame an accident technically on someone else but there is no point in being in the right if you’re dead.
I think you’re confusing
I think you’re confusing “cause an issue” with “educate a driver about their mistake”. I’m not sure how you get to the “giving cyclists a bad name” conclusion when surely it should be that the driver is giving motorists a bad name? The cyclist was simply progressing in his lane when the motorist just swung across the road without indicating or looking which is a careless and dangerous thing to do. The cyclist made an attempt to catch up to the driver – that’s neither careless nor dangerous.
I’m always puzzled when people say “there is no point in being in the right if you’re dead” – is that some kind of threat? What would have happened if everyone had taken that attitude in World War II?
I often cycle around the Downs and it’s a hazardous place for drivers suddenly pulling out of their parking space or suddenly stopping to attempt to park. It’d be so much nicer if they banned cars from most of that area.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You have much more patience than I HP
Not a threat no – just truth,
Not a threat no – just truth, it applies to anything in life. There is no point being dogmatic about the rules if it puts you in danger. Everyone needs to learn to get alongand cooperate, this cyclist is trying to accelerate and cause a problem that they have every option to avoid with negligable loss of speed. In my view it is the cyclists actions here that are indefensible. The video has been heavily edited to try and make it look like the drivers fault. If the cyclist hadn;t attempted to accelerate towards the car they wouldn’t have even come close to it. Comments like suggesting they ban cars just makes it clear how self righteous and intollerant cyclist are becoming and how much columns like this only go to encourage that attitude. If you cycle in a courtesy and defensive manner you will find you have far fewer problems and actually enjoy life more with less stress. Most of the people watching this column probably fall into a minority of cyclist that cycle in such a way as to cause as many problems as they can – that gives cyclist a bad name. Most drivers see cyclists as annoying, arrogant and self important – something that actually only applies to a minority but that columns like this only serve to fuel.
I don’t see any significant
I don’t see any significant acceleration from the cyclist and even if they did, that would in no way endanger the driver, so I don’t think you’re making any sense.
It seems shockingly clear to me that the driver didn’t indicate nor look to ensure that they could safely pull out and not cause other road users to have to change their speed to avoid a collision (which to me is a standard benchmark as to whether a maneouvre was performed correctly).
I stand by my statement that the Downs would be better off with banning cars as it is getting ridiculous in nice weather. I cycled around there yesterday and there was a horde (not sure of the correct collective noun) of about 20 cars parked up on the grass – it looked like some kind of meet as they had music playing and were happily chatting away. It’d be quite easy to restrict that part of the road as through traffic can go round the other way without causing a hazard to cyclists/joggers etc. Luckily, it’s usually very windy around there (top of the Avon Gorge) so the traffic fumes aren’t a noticeable problem.
Check how much the timestamp
Check how much the timestamp wobbles (timestamp is genuine camera level) – that is the cylist pedaling hard out of the saddle. The cyclist is trying to create a video for this column by trying to makie it look like the driver cut them up. The reason the driver didn’t see the cyclist is that they weren’t actually there when the driver started to pull out. There is actually no problem here, just someone trying their best to make it look like there is one to get on this column. If I got annoyed in the car everytime a driver pulled out of a side road and didn’t accelerate quite fast enough so I had to slow a little I’d be a very angry person. The roads require cooperation.
And if you don’t like traffic in the nice weather try one of the wide variety of offroad cycling disiplines.
The Downs is an area of
The Downs is an area of natural beauty and a significant green space, but the road going around it is filled with inattentive drivers as they look to find a scarce parking space (presumably to avoid walking too far to enjoy walking in a pleasant green space). Whenever there’s nice weather, the Downs are filled with people jogging, skating, flying kites, having picnics etc. and there’s usually a significant number of cyclists (of mixed abilities) going round the road there. To my mind, the recreational/sporting nature of that area would be enhanced by restricting traffic near the cliff edge along Circular Rd (obviously the ice cream vans would be allowed through) so that parents wouldn’t have to be so concerned if their children go running off (or dog-walkers and their dogs) and less experienced cyclists wouldn’t be put off from getting exercise.
You’ve made a bunch of assumptions about the driver and the cyclist and I think you’re mistaken and just approaching the video from a particular viewpoint and not appreciating what is and isn’t good roadcraft. You’re correct about not getting annoyed by poor driving, but that doesn’t mean that we should try to excuse it – how many collisions are caused by drivers neglecting to indicate and look?
As far as cooperation on roads go, wouldn’t it make sense if people agree a common set of rules that would minimise conflict (and collisions) and we could call it something like “The Highway Code”. Thus we could easily refer to the recommendations and avoid such conflict e.g. indicate when pulling out and look to ensure that it is safe to do so.
Or did you mean that motorists can just carelessly do what they want and it’s just the cyclists (and scooterists) that have to cooperate?
Or perhaps the wobble is
Or perhaps the wobble is caused by braking and shaking head in disbelief …?
The wobble was caused by
The wobble was caused by acceleration, however he was accelerating after joining the road and seeing it clear…. as most vehicles do when they join.
However then you also got reaction times and also was the cyclist looking ahead or glancing behind as he was moving more into the path of cars coming behind / out of the car dooring zone. I suspect the main wobble that happens is not acceleration but him reacting / grabbing at brakes. However the initial manouvre issue is from the car driver as bikes were coming both ways (one right behind the oncoming car) but she decided to just rush out and hope she didn’t miss one either direction.
“Most of the people watching
“Most of the people watching this column probably fall into a minority of cyclist that cycle in such a way as to cause as many problems as they can”
Oh, you have met all of them and observed their roadcraft?
Most of your comments are based on unsupported assertions.
I had a close pass today of 45-50 mph. No doubt I contrived to arrange this so I can post it to ‘this column’.
hirsute wrote:
Well you’ve got to admit, it all seems a bit convenient H….
For all this behaving and
For all this behaving and being courteous, I received none of that. I was turning right but no way could I take the lane on that road so was in the middle by the line. The driver undertook as though I was not there.
hirsute wrote:
Sorry, was being flippant about the folk who apparently think we “look for trouble for clicks”. Not directed at you, but I can see didn’t come across that way.
I know you were joking, I was
I know you were joking, I was just expanding my description of the ‘incident’ for the benefit of paul111
Here’s the friendly merc driver – even closer than I recalled, perhaps he wanted to say hello.
hirsute wrote:
What an arse
It is often said that
It is often said that cyclists with cameras go out looking for trouble, which seems patently untruse to this uncamered cyclist, trouble seems to find us no matter what we do.
However many red lights we stop at, all, however much Hi Viz we wear, lots, lights, many bright ones, helmet, no headphones, not cycling two abreast, but it makes no difference.
And when you have a camera,
And when you have a camera, you have to behave better as anything you do wrong will be in the clip. So you either don’t submit or you take a risk of falling foul of the law.
I’d like to see more of a
I’d like to see more of a focus on what makes safe cycling infrastructure rather than some of these near-misses.
For example, there are so many bad examples of ill thought-out cycle lanes and the like, it would be nice to have some kind of campaign for better training in highway planning to build the specialist skills required for effective implementation. It feels like there should be a national certification required.
I’d also like more of a focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, some of which (around me at least) is virtually unusable due to disrepair.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately that requires funding, investment, forward planning, clear strategy. What are you, some kind of libtard socialist?
Let’s be very clear – this is
Let’s be very clear – this is in no way a near miss – it is a cyclist accelerating hard towards the back of a car to try and create a problem. Get the unedited video, or a video taken from the side and this will become very obvious.
paul111 wrote:
You know, another interpretation might be a cyclist accelerating because the motor traffic coming the other way had passed, leaving a straight open road? With no indication from that motorist that they were going to come out? If they *had* indicated, or come out more slowly, then maybe out of politeness the cyclist *would* have slowed and let them come out?
Let’s be very clear- this is
Let’s be very clear- this is prime trolling!
The motorist caused the issue
The motorist caused the issue.
If you have viewed a few of these, then you should be aware that there are comments about defensive cycling made on these nmotd eg ‘should have taken the lane’, ‘should have not barrelled on into trouble’, ‘should have slowed a bit given the hazard’ or a recent one ‘that’s not even close- I would have given a thumbs up for the space’.
A few comments maybe, but the
A few comments maybe, but the tone of the column and the central article, is aggressive towards drivers and fails to achieve the educational value that the readers could benefit from. It is more likely to encourage an aggressive attitude that drivers should keep cyclist safe rather then teach people how to look after themselves and stay out of trouble. That should be the editorial focus – don’t blame the party you cannot change (thise drivers aren’t reading the column) – ask yourself instead what could I do differently in such a situation to reduce the danger, what woudl I suggest others do in that situtation. There is a lot of value in examining the near misses of other but most of that value is in self improvement.
paul111 wrote:
Speaking s a driver, this was a crap bit of driving that came close to resulting in a casualty. Don’t get defensive on this particular driver – we’re not tribe FFS. That driver was not paying attention, as evinced by “you were in my blind spot”. Next time it could easily be a kid, and let’s face it, this lack of attention was not confined to this situation alone – the response in itself said habitual.
The driver has a right to be notified that their driving is substandard if only to give them the opportunity to learn for future.
Finding fault the rider is victim blaming
Compelete nonsense. The
Compelete nonsense. The driver was caught off guard when questioned by a cyclist clearly desperate to feature on this column. Even with the clear acceleration from the cyclist there wasn’t even close to a near miss. If the driver had genuinely cut the cyclist up then the video would show them braking and taking avoiding action when it actually shows the opposite.
paul111 wrote:
You know it’s not, otherwise you’d have left it there…
Well yes, she admitted she wasn’t aware of his presence…
Speculation
Now there’s some nonsense…
Which they did
Oh dear, you one of those coppers who thinks that no wobble, no blood, no problem?
There are so many things I
There are so many things I disagree with, with what you’ve written, paul, that I honestly don’t even know where to start…
I guess you are part of the
I guess you are part of the problem then.
paul111 wrote:
“You were in my blind spot” =
“You were in my blind spot” = Victim blaming.
What she should have said was “I didn’t look properly”. This was the real issue.
Not saying the car driver
Not saying the car driver wasn’t a bit hasty/careless but as a cyclist we all have to take responsibility for our own safety as best we can. This cyclist speeding up instead of slowing down when the motorist pulls out infront of them and shouting at the driver is just escalating the situation. To then catch up with them crossing the demarcation into oncoming traffic to have a go at the driver is both irresponsible and risks escalating things even further. A) The cyclist does not know or have the slightest idea who the driver is, what they are going through or if they are prone to aggression or road rage. B) If the driver does flip out or react badly the cyclist does not stand a chance against a car used in anger, why risk it. C) The cyclist using the fact that they are filming people semi overtly as an excuse to be reckless and intimidate drivers is very sad and is also open to abuse through cynical editing and cherry picking footage that looks worse than it is, the cyclist should stop acting like this and try to be more proactive/defensive/tolerant while riding their bike on public roads, there are idiot drivers everywhere, so what? Nobody cares in the slightest if this cyclist was in the right when they end up under the wheels of a vehicle bleeding to death to prove a point.
No indicating, no blind spot
No indicating, no blind spot check. Poor driving.
Fortunately the cyclist had plenty of time to safely avoid. And at least the driver sort of apologised.