Today’s Near Miss of the Day will probably be familiar to any of you who regularly head out into the lanes with a club or group of mates. You are riding two abreast, as is perfectly safe and allowed, when an impatient driver just has to get past.
In this case Oxford Cycling Club, who also sent us NMOTD 682, were on the receiving end of a close pass back during the balmy September late summer.
Dave Nash tells us the driver sounded his horn as he sped past, almost brushing the arm of the lead rider, and members of the group are certain the pass was intentionally close.
Thames Valley Police sent the driver involved a letter of advice, providing guidance in line with the Highway Code.
Dave told us he was pleasantly surprised by Thames Valley Police’s response to “a couple of suggestions we offered”, and that assurances were made that ‘Rule 66′ of the Highway Code, detailing cyclists’ rights to ride two abreast would be included in future letters.
“The club also had the opportunity to impress upon Thames Valley Police the catastrophic consequences if one or more of the cyclists in the group had moved to the right to avoid a pothole or detritus on the road,” Dave told us.
“We are hopeful that motorists cautioned for close passes by TVP will, in future, be advised that their actions could have resulted in serious bodily harm or worse, especially if the cyclists had deviated from their line of travel.”
> 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
85 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 704: Two abreast group close passed by impatient driver who almost hits front rider”
In my experience, from what I
In my experience, from what I’ve been told when updated, most of the drivers receiving ‘words of advice’ are more intent on arguing the point than taking anything on board.
That oncoming vehicle wasn’t
That oncoming vehicle wasn’t for slowing either! I thought that actually looked worse (on the vid, might not have seemed as bad in real life).
It’s hard to tell from the video, but it doesn’t look like it would be possible to pass and leave a 1.5m gap. Ideally in this circumstance, an oncoming vehicle would slow to an almost halt and let the cyclists manoeuvre around them. A following vehicle would need to wait for the cyclists to single out on a sufficiently straight section or for the road to widen.
You don’t need a 1.5m gap for
You don’t need a 1.5m gap for oncoming traffic. The rationale is that you can see each other and so you can slow/stop/manoevre sufficiently to pass each other safely. That’s not the case when overtaking, since we do not spend all our time (in any mode of transport) looking behind us.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
I don’t agree with you here. The risk of a gust of wind or a pothole appearing doesn’t change dependent on the direction of the passing vehicle.
The speed differential with an oncoming vehicle is often much higher too. I ride with a mirror and spend quite a lot of time watching what’s coming up behind me. Your rationale would make close passes acceptable as long as the cyclist had a radar or mirror.
We’ll disagree then. I just
We’ll disagree then. I just know that – on a road wide enough for two cars to pass – I’m (personally) MUCH less concerned with oncoming cars than I am with those behind me.
On single-track roads, I’m right with you. It can even be worse, because the oncoming driver generally expects you to dive out of the way – or doesn’t expect you to be there at all.
(And FWIW I do have a RTL510 which you generally hear merrily beeping away in every submission I make)
Agreed. That’s the worst –
Agreed. That’s the worst – when they expect you to stop/avoid them/ get out of the way as they drive towards you, often at some considerable speed.
When possible, I just stop in the middle of the road, so that they have to stop too (or run me over – not happened yet!). If they wind window down to ‘chat’, I suggest to them that ‘we share the road’.
Last time, the driver responded by saying ‘well fuck off out of the way, then’!!
It’s the just not slowing
It’s the just not slowing down part that gets me with those encounters,its like fine its a narrow road we are going to have to accommodate each other to pass safely that’s just life using these types of roads deal with it, so slow down please. But they dont they just drive at you at undiminished speed and your choice feels like get out the way or be hit.
I havent worked out if it’s just an intimidation tactic, or they just dont understand really what they are doing.
Literally had one yesterday where I had to ride off the road into a hedge and my handlebars were still no more than a few inches away from this car door mirrors doing 40-50mph past me.
I think we’re saying the same
I think we’re saying the same thing.
On a 2 lane road oncoming vehicles are usually not a problem as there’s easily a 1.5m gap. Unless the oncoming vehicle is in my lane overtaking another oncoming vehicle! Which has happened to me and I was not ok about the small gap I was given as they screamed past at 60mph+, even though I could clearly see it all happening in front of me (days before cameras unfortunately).
Once relative speeds are below 25mph or so, I’m not so worried about the size of the gap.
I’m in two minds over this. I
I’m in two minds over this. I’d want to know, are the riders happy that there was enough space for a car coming towards them? If there was then there is no reason why there is not the same space for a car to overtake them, if it is safe head on then it should be safe the other way as well.
Obviously a malicious driver will make a dangerous situation out of a safe one, whichever their direction of travel. Most drivers will slow down when meeting other cars in a road like this, not barrel past with inches to spare. Yet for some reason when it’s flesh and bones, taking up no more width than would a metal box, then they have an axe to grind regardless of the risk. It seems to me that both drivers fell into that category, especially the one overtaking.
My thoughts exactly, the
My thoughts exactly, the video had me very confused. Both cars were a close to the opposite verge as each other. If I had been passed that close by the first car I would then be single file pretty quickly. Having said that both cars could, and should, have slowed down.
Sriracha wrote:
Not true. Down to being able to see each other directly, the time/distance it takes to complete the pass, the side of road you’re on, etc.
Both cars were damn close.
Both cars were damn close.
General tip:
If you’re a computer, pause the video and use “,” and “.” to move frame by frame, backwards or forwards.
the oncoming car feels worse
the oncoming car feels worse for sure, but I think thats maybe the speed. I think with the car from behind, its that the leading rider on the outside who is slightly obscured, gets given no room whatsoever from the driver, its like they start the cut back before theyve properly passed the group.
Because the driver hasn’t
Because the driver hasn’t assessed the manoeuvre correctly. They never saw the cyclists at the front, so never planned to overtake them safely.
This should have been a driver awareness course and not a warning letter.
Should have been riding in
Should have been riding in single file, as evidenced by the oncoming car: “you should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends”.
Stop obsessing about drafting each other and ride sensibly.
Exactly this
Exactly this
None of which negates the
None of which negates the fact that they are not breaking any rules by riding two abreast.
Or the fact that even if they SHOULD have been riding single file the driver still has a responsibility to overtake them without putting them at risk.
if a pedestrian crosses the road suddenly, and without looking, 50m away from a crossing, car drivers are still required to do everything in their power to pass them safely, without putting them at risk, and not bowling past them as close as possible without slowing down … no matter how legitimate they believe their complaint about them not using the crossing etc.
See how this works? This is why the Highway Code needs to spell out that those capable of creating the greatest risk should also carry greater reponsibility.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
In other words:
– leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
– you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances
“You can ride two abreast and
“You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups… Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake … when you feel it is safe to let them do so.”
Found the location on
Found the location on streetview https://goo.gl/maps/FRZTxSJMDqTRsRj16
It’s barely wide enough for two cars to pass, as evidenced by the tyre marks in the mud on the sides of the road and the white audi that’s so far over to let the google car past that it looks as if it’s parked up!
I think Sriracha is right that it’s the sort of road where drivers will slow right down when presented with an oncoming car, do a friendly wave at eachother, as they carefully negotiate past – but then keep it pinned at 60mph and lean on the horn when it’s a group of cyclists coming the other way. I think because of this I would choose to single out on this road.
It shouldn’t have to be like this of course. If a combine harvester was coming the other way, I’m sure most drivers would pull over to let it pass and think nothing of it. They ought to do the same with cycling groups. Similarly, an overtaking vehicle ought to wait for the group to single out. Or in this case, as they were just about to enter a village, just wait patiently behind (like you would do if it was a combine harvester!).
Wow, they were a whole minute
Wow, they were a whole minute (at 15 MPH / 24 km/h) from the intersection! Probably less as they appear to be going faster than that.
MGIF indeed.
HoarseMann wrote:
I think you’ll find that there isn’t the same scope to alter the width or location of a combine harvester (or car) as there is for a group of cyclists who’ve decided to ignore the Highway code recommendation and ride multi-file on a narrow road.
This whole narrative you’re pushing smacks of self-entitlement – we can make ourselves as wide, slow, and cumbersome to pass as possible while we chat on our leisure ride, and there’s nothing you can do about it as you struggle to get to work / pay for the roads we’re riding on for free.
Garage at Large wrote:
Oh Nigel. Oh, poor, dear Nigel
You understand how roads are paid for, right? And it’s not using VED.
In layman’s terms, you can
In layman’s terms, you can think of a two-tier structure for road pricing consisting of a fixed and a variable cost.
There is a fixed cost, which everyone has to pay through general taxation, and which isn’t optional. That is to say that it doesn’t matter if you ride a bike or not, you would pay the same amount. Therefore, for a cyclist, the added fixed cost of riding a bike on the road vs not riding a bike is zero.
Then there is a variable cost, which is applied depending on how much / how far you use the road. For most road users, there are various levies, VED, petrol, tolls etc. But for us lucky cyclists, there are no tolls, no wear and tear fees, no other variable costs at all – again, variable costs are zero.
So, in total, adding up the fixed cost of zero and the variable cost of zero, you’re left with a grand total cost of £0. Hope that helps.
Fixed cost – what we all pay
Fixed cost – what we all pay through general taxation. Then you say the fixed cost paid by cyclists is zero, because you can’t follow what you just wrote.
Leaving that aside, we come to variable cost. Variable cost would accrue depending on how much your usage contributed to costs which would not arise without that usage – usage dependent wear and tear.
So I guess you can see where this is going – riding a bike any amount of miles over tarmac has essentially zero effect on the tarmac. So the variable cost is rightly zero.
No, the fixed cost accrued
No, the fixed cost accrued through cycling is zero. It’s a bit like everyone pays for mobile phone infrastructure through general taxation regardless of if they have a phone (which is akin to people paying a fixed cost for the road regardless of if they have a mobile phone).
However, if you buy a mobile phone there is then an additional fixed network cost per month. This doesn’t exist for cyclists, making the cycling fixed cost zero.
Keeping to mobile telephony, if you have a zero fixed cost contract (i.e. payg), or if you exceed what is provided in your fixed cost package, there is then an additional variable cost. Again, this doesn’t exist for cyclists, making the variable cost zero.
I don’t know how much clearer this can be. Zero fixed costs. Zero variable costs. Cycling simply free-rides on the coat tails of others’ tax contributions. You might very well pay more than your fair share for the road infrastructure in the first place, but there is no denying that – compared to someone paying the same tax as you who doesn’t ride a bike – you’re getting a free lunch.
Garage at Large wrote:
Really?
The government is providing some funding to improve coverage in remote areas, but this is against a backdrop where the vast majority of infrastructure is funded by the telecoms companies, not forgetting there was also a £1.4bn windfall to the government in selling 5g licences in the first place.
There really is no subject where you will present your opinion as fact without even the slightest research.
Have you heard of VAT?
Have you heard of VAT? Payable on bikes, bike clothing, bike lights, energy gels, water bottles, components, train tickets etc etc.
Train tickets are zero rated.
Train tickets are zero rated.
Although how is anyone having this debate? The roads cyclists use are maintained by the highways division of the relevant local council for which cyclists (and pedestrians) pay council tax.
Any ved is payment to pollute.
hirsute wrote:
It’s really not. It’s the very slightest of nods in that direction.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html
Garage at Large wrote:
And yet the fixed cost accrued through cyclists is lots.
Zero additional fixed costs and zero fixed costs are not the same thing. Are you too stupid to realise that or do you think we’re all too stupid to realise that.
By the way, where’s your concern for all the car drivers freeloading off taxpayers who neither drive nor cycle? What are you doing for them?
If, to accommodate the amount
If, to accommodate the amount of cycling I do, I need to buy a new bike every 3 years with 20% VAT on it how is that not a variable taxation cost?
the high sugar snack I consume when cycling also have an extra tax so we are taxed on our fuel.
Just bought a new cassette
Just bought a new cassette and chain. The VAT on that purchase exceeds my annual VED.
The vat on the packet of
The vat on the packet of crisps I bought is more than the ved I pay. I even get a letter posted to me to apply for the ved each year.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
my VED is pretty cheap, but yours must be pcheaper still, or else you are paying more on casettes and chains than I am.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Pretty easily done I should think, there are lots of pre-2017 cars that incur £20 VED, with an Ultegra cassette costing around £80 and an Ultegra chain £35 and a 20% rate of VAT…
Ultegra 11-32 ‘only’ £68 at
Ultegra 11-32 ‘only’ £68 at Bikester. Germany’s still the cheapest place to get a lot of components (if there’s stock) despite Brexit.
Hope you never need to return
Hope you never need to return anything you buy from them. Bikester’s return process is abysmal. One of the worst I have ever experienced. I never ordered from them again after the way they treated me.
Never had to return anything;
Never had to return anything; and if I did, the credit card issuer is equally on the hook 🙂
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Ah cheers – I confess I’ve dropped down to Tiagra cassettes which work absolutely fine with my 10-speed Ultegra Di2, the £40+ saving seems worth the extra 150-ish grams, I can always tip an inch of water out of my bidon before I set out and save the difference that way!
Don’t have that luxury on
Don’t have that luxury on 11sp. TBH though, main consideration isn’t price right now, but stock. I’d have been happy to drop to 105, but not when the only option’s 11-28 🙂
£20. Cost of (available)
£20. Cost of (available) cassettes has risen though, yes.
yep, mine is £30
yep, mine is £30
I finid it amazing how much drivists get worked up about 10p per day, as cost the cyclists are unfairly getting away with.
Compared to the thousands of pounds of depreciation and wear and tear.
Ah but they pay insurance.
Ah but they pay insurance. You only have to go to https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-local-news-stories-276441
to see the £000s of damage that cyclists do up and down the country every day.
Haitchaitch wrote:
my first road bike still going strong at 38,000km according to my strava records.
But your original comment was
But your original comment was that drivers pay for the roads cyclists ride on for free. What you have written does not equate to that.
It’s true that drivers (of petrol and diesel cars) must pay VED to drive on the road. That payment goes into a pot of general taxation, to be spent on roads, and many other things besides. So yes, someone who drives pays a tax that someone who does not drive (or drives an EV) does not pay.
But by the same token, someone who drinks alcohol pays a tax that a tee-totaller does not pay, and a higher rate taxpayer pays a form of tax that a basic rate taxpayer doesn’t. If you want to advance an argument based on relative entitlement to use the roads and other publicly funded services based on individual contribution to the general pot from which roads are funded, it’s a lot more complicated than whether or not you pay VED.
quiff wrote:
…to be more accurate.
It’s true that the charge is
It’s true that the charge is currently calculated based largely on environmental factors (though there’s also an element based on the price of the vehicle), but use on the public road is a critical part. If you only use a vehicle on private land, I believe you can make a SORN declaration and pollute without VED – so in practical terms maybe the most accurate is “pollute on the public road”.
Is the logical continuation
Is the logical continuation for the ‘cyclists can fuck off, because road tax’ presented by dickheads that:
A) VED converts to tax charged by milage (not averse to this if coupled with NHS premium for high polluters with the algorithm factoring the wear and tear of the vehicle.
B) roads and/or lanes are segregated by tax bracket. If you pay higher rate tax you can take any mode of transport you like on any road… if you don’t reach the ceiling for basic you are only allowed on b roads between 9:30 and 15:30 on wednesdays.
C) Cyclists banned from roads. Motorists pay road tax which us calculated to include all road building and road repair costs.
Granted it’s a ridiculous proposition but not as ridiculous as suggesting cyclists don’t pay tax.
quiff wrote:
Although you don’t ever have to switch the engine on to be liable for VED.
It’s true that owners (of
It’s true that owners (of petrol and diesel cars) must pay VED to drive on the road & pollute
Except they don’t! The official Lancashire Constabulary statement, dated 19.1.22, is: the Police do not deal with untaxed vehicles as this is a matter for the DVLA. LC then ‘passes the buck’ to this website:
https://www.gov.uk/report-untaxed-vehicle
This is clearly just a DVLA bin- there is no means to show photographic proof that the vehicle was on the public road untaxed and all you can do is quote the registration number…and all that DVLA can do is check whether the vehicle is untaxed now. In the case I was referring to, the offence occurred on 5th January and the vehicle was untaxed until the 12th January. In other words, the logical course for crims is to only tax after someone tells you about the offence (I suspect the police tipped him off). I also suspect he was uninsured because the police refused to answer that question, but I can’t get that information myself. Driving untaxed has been essentially decriminalised- which I didn’t know, but the crims do!
Nonsense! The DVLA has the
Nonsense! The DVLA has the entire history of a vehicle’s tax status. The police are not responsible for enforcing VED; they can act *on behalf of* DVLA if they see untaxed vehicles, or illegal number plates, but it is otherwise not a police matter. The rapid rise in DVLA-clamped vehicles locally demonstrates that your latter assertion is untrue – at least round here.
BTW – there’s nothing to stop you including a link to a photo/video in your DVLA report.
Nonsense! The DVLA has the
Nonsense! The DVLA has the entire history of a vehicle’s tax status
Piffle! What the DVLA doesn’t have, and doesn’t want, is the evidence that an untaxed vehicle was on the public road. The ‘shop-a-VED-dodger’ web page is clearly designed for vehicles kept on a street with a postcode which are untaxed for ages. In this case, the public road offence was on 5th January and daily checks showed it remained untaxed until 12th. The DVLA page is, as I said, just a bin that nobody ever looks at when it comes to moving vehicle offences. The information that the police are officially uninterested in untaxed vehicles was news to me although I knew that, being Lancashire, they would be unofficially uninterested.
wtjs wrote:
You’re right. I once had a chat with the DVLA about this, they told me reports from members of the public could only be for vehicles habitually stored on a public street. They might consider towing them. But for vehicles in motion, they rely soley on the ANPR enforcement cameras.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/car-tax-evasion-hits-a-record-high-seven-years-after-paper-discs-were-axed-one-in-50-vehicles-have-no-ved-costing-the-uk-£119m-a-year/ar-AARiuVP
I once had a chat with the
I once had a chat with the DVLA about this, they told me reports from members of the public could only be for vehicles habitually stored on a public street
Unfortunately, The Filth don’t appear to know this. They advised me to use the DVLA page in response to the specific case of a moving vehicle offence- actually, of course, even Lancashire Constabulary employs some officers who can read, and were just following the ‘refer complainants to somebody, anybody, else at every opportunity’ force guidelines
I think we (or rather, you
I think we (or rather, you and quiff) may be using two different senses of the word ‘must’ – ‘is required to’ vs ‘is compelled to’.
Surely PAYE isn’t a fixed
Surely PAYE isn’t a fixed cost. It’s variable dependent on how much I earn. If access to the road network was based on the contribution to its upkeep then higher rate tax payers should be given greater access, perhaps they could have their own lanes.
Most of the “variable” costs you refer (VED and petrol) should be seen as environmental taxes – ie they are not paid by EVs. If they were wear and tear fees as you suggest then EVs should be paying something. This contribution has very little to do with paying for the road network since I can avoid it by buying an EV.
In the long run (ie when electric cars dominate) we know road pricing will come in and your variable cost equation will be far more transparent. Whether it will be practical at that stage to include cyclists remains to be seen.
IanMK wrote:
And even then, if I’ve calculated correctly, taking advantage of all the available allowances you could earn over £17k without paying a single penny. You could earn £57k if you max out your pension contribution, and even more if you donate to charity or have other expenses as well.
In other words, it’s just as stupid a point as his other contributions.
Garage at Large wrote:
In layman’s terms, you’re an ignorant moron. Yep here are two variable costs involved in road pricing – how much Council tax you pay and how much other tax you pay. If I pay more income tax than you, buy more things and live in a nicer house then I pay more for the roads than you do.
In short, next time you’re driving along and see someone on an S-Works, please assume they’ve paid for the road you’re freeloading on, and get out of the way of your rightful lord and master, you insignificant pleb.
Garage at Large wrote:
Pretty sure I have to pay VAT on all my bike-related purchases. I guess you could argue I could opt not to buy sports nutrition, and so avoid VAT on fuel. I pay the same VED as a Porsche Taycan, so we can safely ignore that one. And tolls are entirely optional.
As for claiming there’s no wear and tear to worry about…
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
VAT is chargable on both coffee and cake
Aside from my general
Aside from my general taxation contributing to the roads my bike attracted 20% VAT.
happy to be doing my bit ?
Don’t let Nigel distract from
Don’t let Nigel distract from the fact that a car driver decided to put at risk the safety of a number of people on bikes by an action that TVP thought worthy of some follow up.
Anything else is his common tactic of distraction when a motorist is clearly at fault.
It is not OK to put the safety of other road users at risk even if you think, incorrectly, that they should be behaving slightly differently
I once heard a professor
I once heard a professor complain of a particularly poor student, “It’s not that they’re stupid that bothers me, it’s that they assume that I am as stupid as them.”
We can ride for free? Where
We can ride for free? Where do I apply?
Does driving a car turn you
Does driving a car turn you into an angry impetuous impatient prick or does driving attract angry impetuous impatient pricks?
Either way it certainly seems to be a common theme amongst drivers. Thankfully the era of the autonomous driver less car is on the horizon.
Tesla apparently has an
Tesla apparently has an impatient prick mode, so don’t get your hopes up, especially as it is driver choice to select that mode, which includes tailgating, aggressive pulling out at junctions and not waiting in turn at four way stops (an American thing).
IanMSpencer wrote:
it’s boggling that they can be allowed to provide an autonmous car with software which enables it to drive like an agressive prick.
The regulators see no issue with this?
The regulators see no issue
The regulators see no issue with this because it’s not true. You can adjust the assertiveness of the car on the full self driving beta, but this has no impact on how it behaves around vulnerable road users.
While it’s fashionable to denigrate attempts at self-driving cars, it’s already overwhelmingly obvious that they’ll make driving safer around cyclists because they won’t be tempted to pass closely or in inappropriate places due to impatience or simple hatred of people on bikes.
Fursty Ferret wrote:
Except that the Tesla did drive closer to a cyclist in ‘assertive’ mode than it did in ‘non-assertive’ mode (according to the article I read on it).
Fursty Ferret wrote:
That sounds lovely , but that entirely depends on the understanding and value that the algorithm places on the value of life and risk versus MGIF.
If no one is properly regulating how these are written, and what the outcomes actually are, then actually it is all hypothetical.
Currently, it is all in the hands of a handful of car companies, who are keen to keep regulation away. I think we all can see the attention that these custodians of road safety generally pay to 3rd party safety. Why this would be different with autonomous vehicles is unclear to me at least
Captain Badger wrote:
I think thats the glass half empty argument. The half full argument is a handful of companies are now on the hook for road safety instead of a seething mass of individual drivers of random standards and attitudes (some sociopathic) , followed by an indifferent underfunded police force, an incompetent CPS, and a mostly amateur judicary who have never been near a bike in their life.
See – when I say it like that – its Sunlit Uplands all the way!
Secret_squirrel wrote:
They’re only on teh hook as far as there is a political will to put them there. As there is no regulator as of this at the moment there is no hook.
You are correct about the police, CPS and wider judiciary. That’s teh entire point. If they currently dither about whether to prosecute a dangerous driver, it is highly unlikely they will take on Elon Musk.
Captain Badger wrote:
There are also no autonomous cars, so there’s nothing to regulate.
wycombewheeler wrote:
it’s boggling that they can be allowed to provide an autonmous car with software which enables it to drive like an agressive prick.
The regulators see no issue with this?— IanMSpencer
Regulators?
As a group rider, I think
As a group rider, I think that looks like the sort of road where we would ride two abreast but on a call of car up or car down we would reconfigure into single file. Of course, doing that depends on a driver giving you time to do so, by slowing down.
On our social rides, the other element is that we would tend to ride in a less compact formation, and so on a call or other option is to temporarily tighten up the configuration to reduce width and length of the group – ride leaders discretion to call for single file (though every ride has their Mike who is intent on riding on another planet regardless of calls).
^
^
I can understand what you are
I can understand what you are saying, and on a narrow road if I knew a car was approaching I would call for single file ASAP so that we are in place well before the car was to get to us.
A radar is a great help with this too as it has a long range. Unfortunately in some situations car are travelling so fast that you might not have a chance to do that.
Also before Christmas I was riding with a group and we were two abreast when, without knowing, a VW ID3 was behind us and the driver was rather upset. It sounded it’s horn agressively. We moved to single immediately. Some riders don’t like the idea of using a radar however with the rise in EVs it is actually a very useful tool to help keep motorists happy.
Isn’t there an old saying
Isn’t there an old saying “that’s better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to say something and be prooved a fool” Just saying
Gus T wrote:
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Variously attributed to Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln and Samuel Butler.
But I’m not sure why you’re “Just saying” it.
I know this road very well it
I know this road very well it is Bishopstone lane into Bourton. What isnt apparent from the clip is that it is approaching a 30 limit and traffic calming width restriction with priority for (oncoming) traffic exiting Bourton. The traffic calming was put in as there is a church, social club, school and sharp 90 right as you enter the village; it also regularly has roadside parking along it. The traffic calming is on a slight rise with a dip by the social club which puts traffic exiting the village in dead ground to traffic approaching until very close.
I can see why they havent singled out as that would attract a pass as the road narrows or even worse a pass and cut in to give way to traffic at the calming. The cyclists have a better view ahead into the village than the car. Far better to maintain primary until past the calming.
It looks like the red car has seen the car coming out of the village pass the group and decided they must get in front regardless of the road ahead.
When this was filmed there was a lot of ratrunning traffic through Bourton to get to the A420 due to the roundabout at Stratton being rebuilt. Even worse when its chucking out time at Pinewood school as every child seems to have their own SUV.
Thanks for providing insight
Thanks for providing insight about the specific road where this incident happened. For the record, this is a road our club cycles along often and though the video may suggest otherwise, two cars can pass one another without having to stop or slow. All those in the group are experienced cyclists and would never take unnecessary risks, so if the lead riders had felt it necessary to single up, they would have called it.
The angle of the camera is also a little misleading – the car that passed in the opposite direction was not as close as the footage suggests. Conversely, the close pass by the driver of the red car approaching the group from behind was dangerously close to the front wheel of the lead rider, but that is not overly apparent in the video.
Though we maintain that this was a case of dangerous, aggressive driving, we were thankful that Thames Valley Police took action against the driver involved. They did not raise any concerns relating to the group’s position on the road.
“Thames Valley Police sent
“Thames Valley Police sent the driver involved a letter of advice, providing guidance in line with the Highway Code.”
Wow, i’m sure the drivist is shaking in their boots.
So in this case how does a
So in this case how does a driver pass the cyclist leaving the necessary distance without driving up on the opposite grass verge.
Safely?
Safely?
Wow you have now gone back two months in the NMOTD and only commented when you think the cyclists are in the wrong. Anyone would think you have an ulterior motive when posting on here.