Near Miss of the Day 819: Filtering cyclist left-hooked by late-indicating driver

I was going to keep out of this discussion until I read your reply, Ian.
I would suggest that this is a reasonably fair summation; a driver trying to cope with sensory overload - and not just of their own doing either.

True, their driving is potentially distracted by the choice of filling stations (and what kind of twat authorises two filling stations opposite each other?) ... and if most of you looked at yourself impartiality, you would agree that if you needed fuel, you'd be looking at *both* tower signs (hence the larger gap).

For my ha'pennies worth, the rider is way too fast for the conditions - especially given that he is on the inside. Their argument that they were only doing 23/24kmh doesn't work for me . .. 23/24 kmh is many riders (myself included) top speed on the flat.
For me, the rider is not riding to the conditions and is failing to anticipate the actions of other road users in these conditions.

I would think that if this video was submitted to the Police, it would likely be dismissed as the rider has put themselves in this situation.

I also think that if there had been a collision requiring an insurance claim, and awarded damages to the cyclist would be seriously reduced as their speed would be considered contributory negligence.

The driver is not excused ... they clearly have failed in their checks "mirror signal manoeuvre "; but the cyclist has also failed themselves in poor situation awareness and anticipation of other road users mistakes.

IanMSpencer wrote:

...they are deciding which one to go to, has decided on the second and signals, they then drift to the left as they go for the rather undefined entrance...

I've been in a similar (but different) situation. I was the responsible adult accompanying a learner driver. Approaching a roundabout learner belatedly realises they need the inside lane and I grip my seat and scream at them as they drift across. "You can't just do that, you have to look first, you don't know if there's anyone on your inside."

So, is it reasonable in this video for the driver to assume there was no need to check his mirrors? The answer depends on what road users populate your working assumptions. If you exclude cyclists then it's fair to say the driver would perceive that they had already seen that nothing was there, and there was nothing else to look for. I think this is why so often we hear "the cyclist came out of nowhere", or that "cyclists should make themselves visible."

IanMSpencer wrote:

I don't count riding at that speed as filtering, in my book filtering is something done with stationary or near stationary traffic at low speed - as soon as traffic is much above walking pace, too much can change in a built up area.

I'd agree with you there, but the problem is, the point where filtering becomes undertaking is not really formally defined. The only thing that matters is whether a court thinks the driving/riding was careless.

I'd like to see a bit more footage as to the extent of the queuing traffic. Was this a long line of slow vehicles (i.e. was filtering really necessary or to be expected)? Did the car overtake the cyclist shortly before this incident (i.e. the driver knew a bike could be catching them up)?

HoarseMann wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

I don't count riding at that speed as filtering, in my book filtering is something done with stationary or near stationary traffic at low speed - as soon as traffic is much above walking pace, too much can change in a built up area.

I'd agree with you there, but the problem is, the point where filtering becomes undertaking is not really formally defined. The only thing that matters is whether a court thinks the driving/riding was careless.

I'd like to see a bit more footage as to the extent of the queuing traffic. Was this a long line of slow vehicles (i.e. was filtering really necessary or to be expected)? Did the car overtake the cyclist shortly before this incident (i.e. the driver knew a bike could be catching them up)?

In which case you are also debating whether a driver - irrespective of other circumstances - should check their surroundings before leaving their lane, and indicate in time enough to alert any others they had nevertheless failed to see themselves. This driver did neither, they proceeded on a working assumption that there was nothing there, reasonable enough if you are thinking only in terms of other motor vehicles.

Sriracha wrote:

In which case you are also debating whether a driver - irrespective of other circumstances - should check their surroundings before leaving their lane, and indicate in time enough to alert any others they had nevertheless failed to see themselves.

That's not up for debate, the motorist clearly should have checked before turning.

I just think that filtering is not properly defined in the highway code. If you look at motorbikes, they will filter with a lot more speed than the cyclist does here.

HoarseMann wrote:

I'd agree with you there, but the problem is, the point where filtering becomes undertaking is not really formally defined. The only thing that matters is whether a court thinks the driving/riding was careless.

I'd like to see a bit more footage as to the extent of the queuing traffic. Was this a long line of slow vehicles (i.e. was filtering really necessary or to be expected)? Did the car overtake the cyclist shortly before this incident (i.e. the driver knew a bike could be catching them up)?

Yes, I do try and frame much of what I say as my opinion when I can't back it up!

There is not a right to filter, each pass is a road user passing from behind and therefore, regardless of HWC, there is a requirement on the filterer, whether bike or motorbike, to assess the safety of each individual pass, and you do not filter unless it is safe to do so, just as there is a requirement on the motorist to make sure any manouvre he makes is safe.

The red flag here was lots of opportunities for cars to do something other than go straight on, so any cyclist should be filtering with extra care. I think there is a consensus in the comments that this was not the case, much as there is a consensus that the driver fell below the standard expected of them, much as there is a consensus that two wrongs don't make a right 

Quote:

I'd like to see a bit more footage as to the extent of the queuing traffic. Was this a long line of slow vehicles (i.e. was filtering really necessary or to be expected)?

Further up the road, you can see stationary traffic and the next car forward applying brakes, (probably to leave a gap to let the car exiting the petrol station out). I suspect fast cyclist came upon the section of the queue that was caterpillaring forward solely going on the cars not doing much more then 15mph. One of those decisions places on do you stop filtering and join the flow or stay filtering, and as he is nippy, he decided to stay filtering. 

Rough fag packet maths on car and bike covering the 17m exit of the station shows 13mph for car (before brake lights came on) and 20mph for bike. Lots of error potential of course and just using timer on video and having to guestimate front of car location. 

Perhaps the next iterarion of HC should spell out when filtering is legal

What the HC states is irrelevant because the police ignore it anyway- all the evidence on this site is that what really counts is what the police think is the law- often markedly different from the real law. Almost all proven incidents founder at the police/ OpSnap stage where the police dream up stupid reasons for blaming the cyclist, and when they can't think of any, they just bin the evidence (admittedly, I'm referring to Lancashire Constabulary here) and don't respond. You have seen this with the blaming of the cyclist for annoying the driver by going to the front of the queue, thereby 'putting himself in danger'. How was this my fault? (yes, I know you've seen it often before!). The police couldn't think of anything either, so they refused to respond. It's now 8 weeks since I informed the PCC of the complete absence of police response to incidents like this, including the video etc., after the PCC made a public announcement that people dissatisfied with the police response should write to them. No response from the PCC- and this is a dead easy case: there is nothing the police can say other than 'we didn't do anything at all about any of these cases'.

Yep 100% driver at fault for not looking, but not a gap I would have gone for. Too much risk of that happening or a right-turning vehicle cutting across from the opposite direction.

Cyclist might have been keeping an eye for right turning vehicle, hence missing the .5 seconds of indicator he was given that the car wanted slightly cheaper fuel.

Cyclist not following Highway Code? (Might be correct as Irish HC does have changes). Although he does seem to be doing faster speeds then I would there with the amount of obvious turn offs. (Two filling stations in a row, was the second one cheaper?)

I didn't realise it was in Cork and assumed UK, where rule 67 applies and is very much not being followed in this short clip.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I didn't realise it was in Cork and assumed UK, where rule 67 applies and is very much not being followed in this short clip.

HC 67 says nothing about filtering with cars, only about taking care when riding up the left of large vehicles. Screenshot below for info.

Agree with the sentiment.

However, it's in Cork.

Do they use the UK Highway Code?

Good point about being in Cork. I don't know if highway code is relevant in that instance.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Good point about being in Cork. I don't know if highway code is relevant in that instance.

No, Eire has its own "Rules of the Road" document, and as far as I know this cyclist didn't break them.

"The updated code confirms that people cycling may pass slower-moving or stationary traffic on their right or left."

"The code clarifies that when people cycling are going straight ahead at a junction, they have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of a side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-t...

The code also states that cyclists shouldn't ride on the inside of vehicles slowing down or indicating to turn left. The car was doing both (indicating and slowing down) before the cyclist started to pass on the left. You can tell this because you can see an indicator flash in the video. If the cyclist had been traveling at a sensible speed they would have been able to take appropriate action (stopping).

The incident occurred in the Republic of Ireland. I'm not sure that they have updated their own HC. The current one though does have very well laid out guidance for motorists interacting with cyclists. My ch clearer than our own HC.