Near Miss of the Day 677: “My closest call yet,” says cyclist who slammed on brakes as motorist drove across his path

You're going to settle in well here... 

And for the record I can see a clearly flashing light on the front of the bike reflecting in the car door.

"You're going to settle in well here... "

Group-think, anyone?

Or - 'don't you dare come on here, disturbing our little bubble, with any thoughts or comments that don't fit with our blinkered agenda'.

Perhaps you should consider the victim blaming attitude of the original poster who failed to watch the video properly or read thet text of the article and has very little knowledge of UK road laws.

Unless of course you feel that objecting to victim blaming is group think instead of consensus?

Strangely, Flintshire posts stuff against victim blaming elsewhere. Must be missing his weekly quota of digging against the site / certain users being as no Boo or Nicmason posts for a little while. 

Zebras always flash. Rider did slow down as stated and observed. No requirement to ensure pedestrians are fully off the crossing.

Did you read the story at all ?

“I had two lights, one flashing and one steady high beam for off road riding, as well as a bright top on."

And it's P for probationary not provisional.

Or was the author required to give an american translation ?

Usriderinuk wrote:

...

Rider Errors:

1) Rode through flashing Zebra w/pedestrians in the crossing, w/o attempting to slow down. (Note: drivers on the other side of the road stopped. Remember riders are to abide by all traffic laws as a car would, which means stopping at Zebra until all peds are out of the crossing.)

...

 

That's not what the Highway Code says.

Rules 18 and 19 advise the pedestrian to wait until the traffic has stopped but that's contradicted by the rule for traffic approaching a zebra crossing:

Quote:

Rule 195

look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

I.e. you don't have to stop, you just have to give way, which the rider in this example did.

FrankH wrote:

 

That's not what the Highway Code says.

...

I.e. you don't have to stop, you just have to give way, which the rider in this example did.

Correct.  And the legislation itself (ZPPPCRGD 1997) states that pedestrians on the carriageway within the limits of the crossing have precedence. There is no requirement in law for vehicles to stop; indeed vehicles are expressly forbidden from stopping, with exceptions (one of which is to let people cross).  And these exceptions do not apply to pedal cycles without a sidecar (meaning a bike is allowed to stop for any reason?)

There is also, BTW, a requirement for pedestrians to pass over the crossing "with reasonable despatch". So, technically, if the pedestrians had paused (or reversed direction) then they're partly at fault.

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

There is also, BTW, a requirement for pedestrians to pass over the crossing "with reasonable despatch". So, technically, if the pedestrians had paused (or reversed direction) then they're partly at fault.

I wouldn't like to rely on that defence.

Usriderinuk wrote:

The driver may have made an error but from the video it appears to have errors on both sides.

Driver Errors: proceeded through the junction (at a cautious rate) and rider almost hit side of car.

Rider Errors:

1) Rode through flashing Zebra w/pedestrians in the crossing, w/o attempting to slow down. (Note: drivers on the other side of the road stopped. Remember riders are to abide by all traffic laws as a car would, which means stopping at Zebra until all peds are out of the crossing.)

2) its dark, all cars have lights on... did you ever think this driver did not see you.  There is no obvious light beam on the road in front of your bike, is there a headlight? Are you wearing high vis?

Its one thing to post videos saying, Car almost hit me for the upteenth time but as road users are YOU doing everything in YOUR power to avoid these situations? Are you following ALL the traffic rules. Its dark, rainy wet conditions are they riding to the conditions?

In this video I'd say no. If you were in a car and the car started to pull out in front of you like that you'd start to slow down. This cyclist did not.  I saw that car pulling through well before the rider started slowing down.  As a cyclist (as well as a motorcyclist) I try my damnest to be ready to NOT be seen at any given time. If you're relying on Provisional drivers to do it for you yeah, you're going to almost get hit. In my opinion this cyclist needs to take some accountability... they seem a bit entitled.

No collision, due solely to actions of rider.

Do you know anything about riding/ driving in the uk?
Edit: now I see the username. Please please remember if you drive over here that it's your sole priority not to hurt anyone
Hope this helps

1: I would gurantee 90% car drivers if doing the speed that the cyclist was doing would have coasted through the crossing the same as he did as all pedestrians were off it by the time he was at stop point. 

2: Cyclist stated he had lights on. I have no reason to doubt him esepcially as you can see some of them in the reflection from the car when it is stopped. However other cars obscured him from the driver. She saw cars had stopped at crossing on her side so assumed they were all stopped oncoming as well and then decided to move off without confirming no traffic coming.

And it is no surprise the you saw the car pulling out before the cyclist. You are literally watching a video about this happening. I manage to do the same thing watching UK Dash Cams every week where I somehow know that the car is pulling out ahead of the driver, or going around the roundabout the wrong way, or is speeding through a red light as I see the initial setup and know the bad driving is coming. However it is harder to do when actually expeiencing a video with no context. Some of the NMOTD don't make it obvious or is alot worse and they are obvious from the comments at the time of "I saw the first close pass and thought that wasn't too bad, but then that next one Jesus". 

The only thing the cyclist did miss was the flashing car lights the other driver used to indicate to the P plate driver that the other driver was letting her out, not that it was safe to go. But then the cyclist might have been ensuring the crossing was free, checking his shoulder on cars behind, or even thought it was a trick of the light on rain stained glasses. 

Usriderinuk wrote:

The driver may have made an error but from the video it appears to have errors on both sides.

Driver Errors: proceeded through the junction (at a cautious rate) and rider almost hit side of car.

Rider Errors:

1) Rode through flashing Zebra w/pedestrians in the crossing, w/o attempting to slow down. (Note: drivers on the other side of the road stopped. Remember riders are to abide by all traffic laws as a car would, which means stopping at Zebra until all peds are out of the crossing.)

2) its dark, all cars have lights on... did you ever think this driver did not see you.  There is no obvious light beam on the road in front of your bike, is there a headlight? Are you wearing high vis?

Its one thing to post videos saying, Car almost hit me for the upteenth time but as road users are YOU doing everything in YOUR power to avoid these situations? Are you following ALL the traffic rules. Its dark, rainy wet conditions are they riding to the conditions?

In this video I'd say no. If you were in a car and the car started to pull out in front of you like that you'd start to slow down. This cyclist did not.  I saw that car pulling through well before the rider started slowing down.  As a cyclist (as well as a motorcyclist) I try my damnest to be ready to NOT be seen at any given time. If you're relying on Provisional drivers to do it for you yeah, you're going to almost get hit. In my opinion this cyclist needs to take some accountability... they seem a bit entitled.

1) pedestrian leaves crossing as he passes through, but regardless I've been looking into this lately, I can't see any text in legislation or highway code that says you cannot proceed through a zebra crossing once the pedestrians have cleared your path. A pedestrian on the crossing has priority or precedence in the legislation. But I'd like to see the clause that means this means no one to pas through behind them at a safe distance.

2) back to my favourite "the cyclist has (barely in this case) avoided a collision which would have been due to a motorist not following the rules, but they could have avoided it better by being more cautious"

He didn't ride through it at speed! looks like he coasted, moved further the centre to give room and would have stopped in the same amount of time and space he stopped when car came out if one had stopped whilst still on crossing. All pedestrians were actually off the crossing before he entered it. I suspect performing that manouvre added to the further issue of driver not looking correctly as he was probably hidden for a second or two more from their line of sight. 

Says he freewheeled in the body of the story.

Doesn't matter how fast he was going.  When peds are in the crossing vehicles need to wait until the peds have cleared the crossing to proceed.  Remember, as cyclist we too have to follow ALL road rules.

Usriderinuk wrote:

Doesn't matter how fast he was going.  When peds are in the crossing vehicles need to wait until the peds have cleared the crossing to proceed.  Remember, as cyclist we too have to follow ALL road rules.

I'm afraid you're just plain wrong old chum. If you think otherwise, please cite the relevant legislation and/or HC rule.

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

Usriderinuk wrote:

Doesn't matter how fast he was going.  When peds are in the crossing vehicles need to wait until the peds have cleared the crossing to proceed.  Remember, as cyclist we too have to follow ALL road rules.

I'm afraid you're just plain wrong old chum. If you think otherwise, please cite the relevant legislation and/or HC rule.

It's true that the HC does not actually say that. However rule 194 does say:

Allow pedestrians plenty of time to cross and do not harass them by revving your engine or edging forward

I'd interpret that as saying you should not bear down on them at 30kph when they are established on the crossing, riding on the expectation that they will clear the crossing just in time for you to skim past behind them. In any case it's foolish - the pedestrian might stumble or double back. Happened to me and I nearly ploughed into them.

Sriracha wrote:

It's true that the HC does not actually say that. However rule 194 does say: Allow pedestrians plenty of time to cross and do not harass them by revving your engine or edging forward I'd interpret that as saying you should not bear down on them at 30kph when they are established on the crossing, riding on the expectation that they will clear the crossing just in time for you to skim past behind them. In any case it's foolish .[/quote]

The point about bearing down on them at speed is a good one, as I often have this with cars on my road bearing down on me as I reverse onto my drive, fully committed and relying on my hitting the gap first time. Which winds me up. On those rare occasions when I have to pause, they just use the dropper kerbs opposite and pass me half on the pavement. (at 30mph)

In this case our cammer enters the crossing just after the last pedestrian steps onto the pavement, but he is at least 2m out from the kerb at this time, so far from skimming past him. To be honest if all cars 'skimmed' past the cyclists there were overtaking at this distance there would probably not be a near miss of the day feature.

It would be interesting to see the traffic chaos if drivers had to wait for previous cars to clear the roundabout before pulling out behind them, instead of simply giving way (i.e allow them to go first safely)

It is because she is a new driver that I would report her. She may think that a cyclist is somehow made of teflon or a cartoon figure. She might pick up this bad behaviour and the next person on a bike... not so lucky or adept as you. 

Spokesperson wrote:

It is because she is a new driver that I would report her. She may think that a cyclist is somehow made of teflon or a cartoon figure. She might pick up this bad behaviour and the next person on a bike... not so lucky or adept as you. 

Not surprising given the atitude of most UK driving instructors

So would I!

My personal threshold for telling tales is blatant callous disregard or deliberate malign intent. Somewhat subjective, but I really do still believe that most people learn from genuine errors and most often an apology is all that is needed.

Anyone who drives and claims never to have made an error are the ones to avoid getting into a car with. I know from my personal experience in almost 40 years of holding a driving licence, and 50 cycling, that occasionally you get away with something only by the awareness and preventative action of others.

Mungecrundle wrote:

My personal threshold for telling tales is blatant callous disregard or deliberate malign intent. Somewhat subjective, but I really do still believe that most people learn from genuine errors and most often an apology is all that is needed. Anyone who drives and claims never to have made an error are the ones to avoid getting into a car with. I know from my personal experience in almost 40 years of holding a driving licence, and 50 cycling, that occasionally you get away with something only by the awareness and preventative action of others.

Indeed, most accidents are the result of someone doing something stupid and other not making allowances for it. Or we could say that all accidents are the result of someone doing something stupid, but probably less than 1% of times that people do something stupid result in an accident, the rest of the time others bail them out.

There are few accidents where a single action is the cause and nothing anyone else could have done would have made a difference.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

My personal threshold for telling tales is blatant callous disregard or deliberate malign intent. Somewhat subjective, but I really do still believe that most people learn from genuine errors and most often an apology is all that is needed. Anyone who drives and claims never to have made an error are the ones to avoid getting into a car with. I know from my personal experience in almost 40 years of holding a driving licence, and 50 cycling, that occasionally you get away with something only by the awareness and preventative action of others.

Indeed, most accidents collisions are the result of someone doing something stupid and other not making allowances for it. Or we could say that all accidents collisions are the result of someone doing something stupid, but probably less than 1% of times that people do something stupid result in an accident collision, the rest of the time others bail them out.

There are few accidents collisions where a single action is the cause and nothing anyone else could have done would have made a difference.

Fixed that for you - accident implies an unexpected/unforeseen event - very few collisions on the roads are unexpected/unforeseen as they are almost all preventable if the drivers/riders were paying attention and following the rules.

makadu wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

My personal threshold for telling tales is blatant callous disregard or deliberate malign intent. Somewhat subjective, but I really do still believe that most people learn from genuine errors and most often an apology is all that is needed. Anyone who drives and claims never to have made an error are the ones to avoid getting into a car with. I know from my personal experience in almost 40 years of holding a driving licence, and 50 cycling, that occasionally you get away with something only by the awareness and preventative action of others.

Indeed, most accidents collisions are the result of someone doing something stupid and other not making allowances for it. Or we could say that all accidents collisions are the result of someone doing something stupid, but probably less than 1% of times that people do something stupid result in an accident collision, the rest of the time others bail them out.

There are few accidents collisions where a single action is the cause and nothing anyone else could have done would have made a difference.

Fixed that for you - accident implies an unexpected/unforeseen event - very few collisions on the roads are unexpected/unforeseen as they are almost all preventable if the drivers/riders were paying attention and following the rules.

you are correct and I am ashamed.

I think this illustrates the point!

What we could do at a higher level - like what is done with rail, boats, planes etc. - is to acknowledge that people are people and will screw up. Then develop our road systems appropriately (infrastructure, rules and education):

• Some factors make mistakes much more likely e.g. distraction, mental overload, uncertainty. So make it simpler and easier for people to get it right. Current example: traffic lights - you don't have to slow and watch out for others from all directions at a junction.
• Mistakes happen - so plan for likely ones and try give warning you're going wrong and minimise the consequences. We do some already: rumble strips along road sides and crash barriers if you don't turn back. We have defined lanes with all traffic going in same direction but in some countries they've physically stopped overtaking on many single-lane bi-directional roads because the rare mistakes have very serious consequences.
• When a crash occurs investigate it and again consider the big picture. Yes, the proximate cause was likely someone screwed up - but was there anything about the environment / rules which made this more likely?