It’s been a while since we shared a Near Miss of the Day, but not for a lack of submissions, bear with us while we work through your videos…
Today’s comes from a reader in the New Forest who suffered a close call with a driver towing a caravan on Boxing Day.
“As we were approaching the town of Lyndhurst on the Lyndhurst Road this Land Rover towing a caravan came flying by at 50 mph,” road.cc reader Laurie told us.
“Gave us quite a fright and almost sent my friend into the gutter. Needless to say, we turned back to the New Forest gravel paths as quickly as possible! Reported to Hampshire Police. Fingers crossed they do something.”
Those with good memories might remember a shocking incident we reported back in the summer which prompted an investigation from Dorset Police after footage emerged showing a collision involving a motorist towing a caravan and a cyclist near Bournemouth Airport.
The collision came at the end of the video, moments after one of the other cyclists in the group’s rear-facing camera had recorded the driver apparently sounding their horn as they overtook the group, who were travelling at close to 40km/h.
As the group filtered to the front of the queue at the traffic lights, and past the motorist, one rider could be heard saying “I got him on video”, while someone else is heard saying: “F****** idiot”.
Then, as the group rolled away from the stop, the driver continued forward closely behind the penultimate rider, hitting their back wheel. Dorset Police confirmed the cyclist suffered minor injuries but did not require hospital treatment.
In the footage, after colliding with the cyclist, the caravan-towing motorist was seen driving over the rider’s bike and out of shot. It is not clear if the motorist stopped at the scene of the incident.
> 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
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
80 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 847: Careless caravan close call causes cyclists concern”
While it is atrocious driving
While it is atrocious driving, it could have been avoided if the cyclist had actually taken the lane, instead of riding in the gutter. Always difficult to do on major, fast roads, but you have to make the driver overtake you, rather than giving them just enough room to squeeze through.
Doubling up would have been
Doubling up would have been better.
” sent my friend into the gutter. ”
They were already in the gutter !
make the driver overtake you,
make the driver overtake you, rather than giving them just enough room to squeeze through
Very difficult to execute this counsel of perfection on this road, by the look of it. My fault, in the case below, was even contemplating cycling on this road near Blackpool
https://upride.cc/incident/pe69ooc_clio_closepassspeed/
The vehicle has now had no MOT for 5 months. Maybe it’s been written off?…
Did you see your ‘Go ahead
Deleted
That was absolutely shocking.
That was absolutely shocking. I know as cyclists we bare the brunt of this kind of driving but the disregard to the drivers coming the opposite way and themselves is unbelievable…it only takes a slight deviation for someone to come out of that a lot worse.
As I see it, the problem
As I see it, the problem there is that you would be playing a game of Russian Roulette with somebody else unidentified firing the gun.
With the traffic headed into the sun on a fast road, that’s the circs where the dangerous driver killed Councillor Paul James 2 years ago.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/paul-james-councillor-court-ceredigion-19076246
Personally I won’t take the lane where the traffic can be doing more than say 30mph, and I certainly won’t on country A roads. Just too dangerous.
As an individual, it is much
As an individual, it is much harder but with a group more doable.
This is where radar helps. Although I do have small mirror, when the sun is bright and low, it’s hard to see with it what is coming. WIth radar you get a beep, a warning colour and a speed and then crucially if they are slowing. Enough time to adjust your position (or jump in the hedge).
On that kind of road you can
On that kind of road you can take the lane as a group two abreast. You present as a vehicle to the driver. I’ve never had an incident in a group, aside from complaints, of course.
As a single rider, you have to be able to observe traffic, so mirrors are key, shoulder-checking is too unbalancing to do on a frequent basis. So the theory is to take a strong position, and either be convinced you’ve been observed and move to a position to allow a pass without creating aggravation (in their minds, assume the worst) or get out the way as much as possible if the car language is too aggressive.
It’s counter-intuitive, but I
It’s counter-intuitive, but I’ve found taking the lane to be safer when riding into the sun, especially on a ‘fast’ road. You can get hidden in the shadows if you ride at the edge.
Partly it is how drivers scan
Partly it is how drivers scan the road. They are only thinking car/lorry, so they don’t even try and assess the margins.
When you walk in the road or cycle, it dawns on you that you need to be more aware, so you will tend to include the margins. People also believe their field of active, accurate vision is much wider than it really is. A cyclist or walker moving along the road doesn’t create enough lateral movement to trigger peripheral vision which is mainly about movement, not detail). The angle of detailed vision is amazingly small – about a 50p at arm’s length.
I think that is why so many drivers unintentionally close pass.
I think it is also why many drivers think they have the ability to drive without concentration. When you are continually scanning the road for hazards, checking the surface for potholes, contemplating the clues far ahead as to what is about to occur, it is a full time task. If all you are thinking about is following the car in front, you can believe you’ve got capacity for other things.
Usually this would be the
Usually this would be the port of call but given the incline of the road and the tailback, along with the blinding sunlight and limited overtaking space, the pressure to be courteous and allow overtaking space was great. But the thing is they could have overtaken if they used the white lines in the middle. Other cars had done so and it was fine. Hence we were riding in the gutter. But the caravan decided not to make full use of the overtaking space.
Laurian wrote:
Psychological pressure always less than Physiological pressure on the scale of Consequences…
“He was well intentioned” is a kind epitaph.
I’m glad that you lived to tell the tale, but your safety is more important than a momentary inconvenience to other road users. #TravelKind
Advanced alliteration applied
Advanced alliteration applied, Alexander!
The rider should have been in
The rider should have been in primary position. If you ride too close to the edge it encourages that type of wreckless overtake.
It was only just wreckless!
It was only just wreckless!
I agree that cyclists have to
I agree that cyclists have to take a strong position. Especially when on faster roads.
Motorists should be made to wait on clear passing opportunities to use their vehicle’s power. Where and when that opportunity arises.
With excellent visibility and in a strong position. The cyclist can halt any chance of a motorist gambling through a gap.
I wear a cateye viz 450 on my rear. It grabs the motorists attention. Every time. I also find that wearing high viz camera’s front and back encourages extra care and consideration in many motorist passes.
Take control people. Don’t let the fuxkers squeeze you out.
I’m sorry, but I can’t get on
I’m sorry, but I can’t get on board with the notion that the cyclist is responsible for ensuring the driver makes adequate driving decisions… that’s victim blaming 101 surely?
You don’t cross the white line in your car to dissuade boy racers from nipping past you, so why should cyclists have to expose themselve to greater risk, simply so that drivers are forced to refrain from dangerous overtakes?
This driving simply can’t be excused, when thinking about what we, as cyclists, could do better, the answer should be to lobby the authorities, MP’s, to push back on dubious police assessments, use cameras, report incidents like this, and don’t take no for an answer. Anything else is pissing in the wind.
I agree. It’s difficult to
I agree. It’s difficult to tell from the video, but it looks safe to overtake except for oncoming vehicles, i.e., there is visability. I understand taking primary position where the road doesn’t facilitate passing, but does this mean doing the same when there is oncoming traffic on an otherwise good road? This would seem quite difficult to judge.
I’m not sure I understand
I’m not sure I understand this; “It looks safe to overtake except for oncoming vehicles” which means it’s not safe to overtake as the driver cannot give adequate space (as seen) because of said oncoming vehicles. I don’t wish to pre judge I just don’t understand what you are implying in your comment.
You could say any form of
You could say any form of defensive road craft can be turned around into a form of victim blaming.
I certainly have positioned my car to dissuade someone overtaking before a bend.
They were riding a lot closer
They were riding a lot closer to the kerb than I ever would, but that’s their decision to make.
But I cannot imagine what was going through the mind of the driver of the SUV towing the caravan (if anything) – that was an appalling example of driving. Almost makes you wonder if they even noticed the cyclists…
I think my distinction would
I think my distinction would be is closer to the kerb than id want to be…but I recognise & understand why they ended up there on such a road like that and I wont criticise their positioning as being contributory or at fault.
The driver I suspect like most of them thought, if I fits I can pass, and doesnt realise the literal impacts of those decisions
Sorry, I hadn’t meant that
Sorry, I hadn’t meant that there was anything particularly wrong with where they were riding, just meant that I wouldn’t usually ride that close in to to the kerb.
Hi everyone,
Hi everyone,
I am the rider who recorded this footage. Just to clear anything up based on what some others were saying in the comments.
This was a very fast road (national speed limit) with very blinding sunlight ahead. We were directed onto this road following our *ahem* trusty Garmins while out trying to stay in country lanes. The reason we were not more dominant on the lane is due to the fact we were on a slight incline so we were trying to be courteous to let the queue of traffic behind us past, and prior to this particular footage of the caravan which was incredibly dangerous, people were still overtaking a little too close for comfort. Given the blinding sunlight and the speed at which cars could travel on this road, and our speed, and the lack of means of safely passing, I think the feeling was one of not wanting to be hit by someone who had ‘had enough’ of us and decided to punish us and then claim they couldn’t see us. You know how irrational some people get when behind the wheel.
Not to mention that we were trying to allow cars as much space as possible given the traffic.
The great irony is after we got to the nearest exit and went back into the quiet forest roads we did get directed back to this road again further up and found it gridlocked for miles into the village of Lyndhurst and found ourselves cycling past all the people who had overtaken us ? The caravan got away though. Otherwise they would have gotten a good yelling at.
Ride safe! And never ride without a camera!
Ride safe! And never ride
Ride safe! And never ride without a camera!
Don’t allow yourself false hope! Even with a camera, if the police are hostile to cyclists they will just ignore the incident. This bloke was in a vehicle which nearly hit me when I was already on a mini-roundabout by cutting across to the right of the roundabout paint. There was then a tirade of abuse by the nutter boyfriend of the driver on the classic ‘blame the victim’ theme popularised by the police. Then they drive off the wrong way across the roundabout again. Police instantly NFA’d it before they could have even spoken to the driver- normally they don’t respond at all!
http://pride.cc/incident/ve17wzv_insignia_nearheadonroadrage/
Well done for staying upright
Well done for staying upright and surviving the experience. I find the level of victim-blaming on here to be appalling. Particularly, frankly, Hirsute’s suggestion that you should get a radar so that you can anticipate the reckless driving of others and dive into the hedge at a moment’s notice if needed. They are usually much more sensible.
I hope that other road users and the posters on here are more considerate of you in future.
I’d hardly call Hirsute’s
I’d hardly call Hirsute’s comments victim blaming. They’re not excusing the driver or saying the cyclist caused the incident.
Even the highway code has now been updated to encourage cyclists to take the lane in certain circumstances.
HoarseMann wrote:
Sure. When someone is close passed, you lot are all “should have been riding further out, should have had a light in daytime, should have had radar and dived in the hedge(!)” But when someone suggests that wearing a helmet could have helped mitigate a brain injury, all hell breaks loose.
Complete farce.
I don’t have radar but using
I don’t have radar but using a bar-end mirror can be helpful in getting a glimpse of what is behind you when turning to look might not be wise. This has often taken the surprise out of a vehicle passing closely followed by an unexpected trailer. Electric vehicles can often be near-silent so useful here as well.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Hardly a farce. It’s unhelpful to suggest a cycling helmet could mitigate a brain injury in a collision with a vehicle, because they’re not designed for that. I’d rather ride defensively and assertively to try and prevent a collision, than hope a plastic lid will save me from injury.
I have adapted my riding and become far more defensive having seen many of these NMotD videos and reading the comments. Am I victim blaming myself?! Nope, just being realistic that there are crap drivers out there and if there are things I can do to mitigate their idiocy, then I’ll do it.
As levestane says, a mirror can help take the surprise out of a close pass. I find the combination of a radar, mirror and defensive road position means I almost never get a pass I wasn’t expecting.
HoarseMann wrote:
I think you might be putting your helmet on wrong. It’s not supposed to be strapped so far south.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You’ve got a bee in your bonnet about helmets haven’t you?
Sharing tips and strategies to help avoid getting hit by poor drivers is helpful to other cyclists whereas droning on about how helmets save lives is merely a tactic to move blame from the driver onto the cyclist. Helmets do have their uses, but they’re not designed nor sold to be able to cope with vehicle collisions – they’re of most use to protect against skull fractures in low speed impacts (e.g. mountain biking) but not especially useful in preventing damage to the brain.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’ve got a bee in my bonnet about the rediculous double standards in here. Suggest that someone buys a radar so that they can dive into a hedge for their own safety, and it’s situation normal. Suggest that someone wears a bit of polystyrene that might* protect their noggin, and everyone loses their minds!
*Note the use of might here, it’s an important word in this sentence.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I’m a fan of the Cateye BM-45 handlebar mirror myself – perfect for drop handlebars. Once positioned correctly (you can easily perform minor adjustments whilst riding if you take care), it’s just a quick glance down to see what’s behind you and if it’s a good time to pull out into another lane or overtake or some such.
The issue some of us on here have with bike helmets is that they are continually brought up as some kind of miraculous solution to road danger when (as St Chris puts it) they’re not even in the top ten of things that keep cyclists safe. It’s a common theme that non-cyclists will shout abuse at cyclists for not wearing a bike helmet and call them idiots, when it’s all just marketing bullshit and a way to deflect from actually making the roads safer for cyclists.
It’s gotten so bad that the courts will assign blame to a cyclist for getting driven into, just because they weren’t wearing a helmet which is of course ridiculous – a helmet does not prevent crashes and there’s disputable evidence to suggest that they may make crashes more likely (either from drivers giving helmetted cyclists less room or from cyclists taking more risks as they think their helmet provides sufficient protection).
hawkinspeter wrote:
But the comments on here are assigning blame to the cyclist for getting nearly driven into because they weren’t far enough out from the kerb, didn’t have a rear light on in daytime, didn’t have a mirror, didn’t have radar. You’re increasing the standard required by cyclists to be considered ‘safe’ by doing that. It’s disgusting.
There is one cause of that very, very dangerous close pass. The amoeba behind the steering wheel.
ShutTheFrontDawes][quote
But the comments on here are assigning blame to the cyclist for getting nearly driven into because they weren’t far enough out from the kerb, didn’t have a rear light on in daytime, didn’t have a mirror, didn’t have radar. You’re increasing the standard required by cyclists to be considered ‘safe’ by doing that. It’s disgusting. There is one cause of that very, very dangerous close pass. The amoeba behind the steering wheel.— ShutTheFrontDawes
From just a quick scan over the comments, they don’t seem to be apportioning blame, but offering advice (in my opinion at least). There’s certainly a good point to be made about not requiring cyclists to be expert in roadcraft just to be able to not get hit and I completely agree about the issue being the driver.
I think it’s useful to discuss lane positioning though and I vary my position a lot based on local knowledge (e.g. corners that get cut). I find that I’m more likely to cycle in the gutter if I’m travelling slower than other traffic and I want them to overtake (e.g. dual carriageway), but will become more assertive at roundabouts, junctions etc.
If we don’t watch nmotd and
If we don’t watch nmotd and consider what could have been done differently then that’s missed opportunity. It was mungecrundle who said (based on motorcycling training) – if you are moving there is nearly always something you could have done, if you are stationary there might have been something you could have done.
Roadcraft is for all users including peds. Once you walk on country lanes, you soon realise that the rule of keeping on the right is not the best place in every situation and it can be safer to move to the left for say a right hand bend.
I certainly drive differently from my younger days and take a lot more care on country bends to slow on the basis that there will be an idiot coming too fast the otherway.
Lane positioning is important because of the group of ‘unaware incompetents’ (or similar) as one of the Ians put. The idea there are a group of drivers who don’t observe and are just not aware of their lack of skills. You don’t want to open up a gap they think that they can get through
* even then no guarantee (course or points for this one below)
Clearly some see this as victim blaming but to me it’s taking control of situations to mitigate the risk to all. It is also the response to those who say phone use is ok or speeding – they don’t take account of the rest of the road users who are reducing the overall risk and mitgating their behaviour.
*
Good point about cutting
Good point about cutting corners.
This cycle lane on the Warwick Road near Hatton seems to have been installed with the explicit purpose of protecting cyclists on a long left hand bend with restricted visibility.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/WHmh6NTF7j2N9PR5A
IanMSpencer wrote:
I was thinking of this corner on Coronation Rd in Bristol: https://goo.gl/maps/3oKevqWTJm7MyX5RA
The angle of the corner almost entices motorists to take a racing line through it, so I highly recommend getting into primary before it.
As I already wrote it was
As I already wrote it was “somewhat tongue in cheek”
As HP writes
“Sharing tips and strategies to help avoid getting hit by poor drivers is helpful to other cyclists whereas droning on about how helmets save lives is merely a tactic to move blame from the driver onto the cyclist.”
Defensive roadcraft is going to be far more useful than a helmet because you will avoid the scenario where a helmet might mitigate the problem.
If it’s a radar you’re
If it’s a radar you’re mounting what about defensive weaponry too (grab some before it gets sent east)? That could remove the hazard from people, rather than forcing people to avoid the hazard.
TBH hitting someone from behind when in a motor vehicle sounds like something that ought to lead straight to suspension of licence at least, simply for the protection of all road users.
hirsute wrote:
I hope you wear a helmet when you dive into that hedge.
You understand it is not a
You understand it is not a literal hedge.
hirsute wrote:
Ok so in all seriousness, what you said was that it gives you time to “adjust your position”.
What did you mean by that? If someone came hammering up behind you to squeeze through a space that isn’t there, what should you do?
As far as I can tell, you have three options.
1. Move to the left to get out of their way; not a lot of space in this instance as you can see – unless you jump into the verge/barrier.
2. Move to the right and get hit by said vehicle.
3. Stay where you are, in which case, What’s the point of the radar/mirror?
So how exactly does this wonderful data, be it from a mirror or a radar, help a cyclist?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
When riding into low sun, there’s the fear a driver might not see you. It’s therefore valid to think riding very close to the edge of the road will be safer, as it’s less likely you’ll be hit.
However, you are much more likely to be seen if you are riding in the centre of the lane. Riding near the side means you’re not where drivers are looking (squinting?) and can get lost in shadows or badly contrasted against the background clutter of the (non-literal) hedgerow.
I take the view that most drivers don’t want to actually hit me, that is a low risk. But there’s quite a high risk that they are not paying attention or looking properly and might not see me.
A radar & mirror enables me to ride in a very prominent position to make myself as visible as possible – but crucially, the risk of getting hit is no worse than riding at the very left edge, as I can watch approaching vehicles in the mirror to make sure they’re slowing.
If they are not slowing, I will move my position further out to the right then back again (the human eye can discern a lateral movement more easily than a looming one). I then have the option to move to that very left edge position if I think they’re really not going to slow down and yes, even take a dive over the barrier in the worst case.
The radar is a nice-to-have that means I don’t need to constantly glance in the mirror to keep an eye on what’s coming up behind. It sometimes even warns me of a vehicle that is not yet visible in the mirror, as it’s approaching around a bend – this typically happens when there’s a nice flat chevron sign or a wall, fortuitously placed for the radar signal to bounce off.
HoarseMann wrote:
In what way does a radar and mirror enable you to do this? You weren’t able to ride in a prominent position without a radar and/or mirror? How does a radar and/or mirror help?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I would not feel safe riding in such a promient position without full knowledge of what traffic is approaching from behind. That is what the radar/mirror combo enables.
With that knowledge, I can take an active role in managing my visibility and position amongst the traffic around me. It also takes any surprise out of the equation, which as you say yourself, can be dangerous.
HoarseMann wrote:
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this please? Do you weave about to present a bigger target or something?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
He did answer this initially.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
He did answer this initially.
— ShutTheFrontDawes
So, when a car is approaching quickly from behind, the recommendation is to move out (further into their path) and then back in again? I.e weave about a bit? You can’t be serious.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Because then they’re more likely to notice you and maybe move out a bit? Sure – why not?
At a range of 140m there is
At a range of 140m there is enough time
I got a bloke to abort his overtake doing 40 in a 30 because I had time to turn round and gesture a stop signal.
brooksby wrote:
Haha, good one. Make it appear* that you’re a completely incompetent road user that can’t even cycle in a straight line, and you think that incompetent drivers are less likely to close-pass you? Pull the other one.
*Although based on some of the comments on this thread it may not merely be an appearance of incompetence.
This one would be a good one for the Real HWC thread. Rule 413 if while cycling you think you are about to be close-passed, weave about the road a bit as though drunk – the driver is then able to claim you were incompetent and completely excuse their own reckless driving.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Because then they’re more likely to notice you and maybe move out a bit? Sure – why not?
— brooksby Haha, good one. Make it appear* that you’re a completely incompetent road user that can’t even cycle in a straight line, and you think that incompetent drivers are less likely to close-pass you? Pull the other one. *Although based on some of the comments on this thread it may not merely be an appearance of incompetence. This one would be a good one for the Real HWC thread. Rule 413 if while cycling you think you are about to be close-passed, weave about the road a bit as though drunk – the driver is then able to claim you were incompetent and completely excuse their own reckless driving.— ShutTheFrontDawes
https://www.rivbike.com/pages/getting-cars-to-scooch-over-and-helmets
Several others have noted a
Several others have noted a quick “wobble” has caused cars to slow down who were attempting an ill-advised overtake.
TBH, riding in the gutter, riding in secondary, riding in primary, doing a wobble etc. All styles are anecdotally “it kept me safer / made me feel safer” as the cyclist is still safe. However the ones where it hasn’t had the desired effect might not be around to confirm the technique that they were doing (apart from the traditional “they came from nowhere /were in the middle of the road / were weaving everywhere” defences used by killer drivers).
So I wouldn’t get to hepped up about it. The few videos I have posted have had comments similar to this one. It is more of and advice that a driver might not try to squeeze through if they don’t see a bigger gap and should definitely not be seen as victim blaming.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
So all a cyclist has to do to prevent the armchair experts on here from piping up with ideas about how the cyclist could have been safer is to ride in the gutter, ride in secondary, ride in primary, do a wiggle, have a rear light on in daytime, have a mirror AND have radar, all at the same time. Brilliant.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Maybe you’d be better off not reading the comments on NMOTD if you don’t like experienced cyclists sharing various opinions on how to deal with traffic. I would bet a pile of inner tube dust caps that we’re not so much armchair experts, but have real-world experience of cycling in all sorts of conditions.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Maybe you’d be better off not reading the comments on NMOTD if you don’t like experienced cyclists sharing various opinions on how to deal with traffic. I would bet a pile of inner tube dust caps that we’re not so much armchair experts, but have real-world experience of cycling in all sorts of conditions.— ShutTheFrontDawes
That’s a good point. The level of victim blaming from so-say experienced cyclists who assume that every other cyclist is inexperienced just because they don’t come with radar fitted, does stick in the craw somewhat. Perhaps I’m better off just not engaging with the rediculous suggestions in the first place.
You do all seem to have experience, but yet can’t seem to agree on the appropriate road position, and for some reason suggest wobbling around every time your radar goes beep.
And god forbid you suggest that a helmet might prevent a head injury.
I’ll say it again: complete farce.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I’m now wondering if it’s just that you have a thing with reading comprehension. You seem to regularly misinterpret what people are saying.
I’d say that most folks have
I’d say that most folks have one or more issues where the noise of the bees buzzing drowns out all else *. ShutTheFrontDawes was kind enough in the past to explain the origin of one of theirs which concerned helmets.
Luckily I am so empty-headed mine have got plenty of room. Although the echos are a bit strange – maybe I should see the doc?
* I mean, even plants can hear them!
ShutTheFrontDawes][quote
The level of victim blaming from so-say experienced cyclists who assume that every other cyclist is inexperienced just because they don’t come with radar fitted, does stick in the craw somewhat.— ShutTheFrontDawes
I specifically said
“I’m no more suggesting radar than Fignon’s ghost is suggesting a rear light. “I wear a cateye viz 450 on my rear.”
It’s up to each person to think about their risk appetite and what they want to have or not to have.”
I also linked to a January review on here of radar.
Do actually bother to read what people have written in full or do you only focus on the odd word and sentence ?
As to armchair experts – I have had a nmotd on here, I regularly posts photos of incidents in the daily blog, I have years of experience.
There are poor drivers out there and incompetent ones, so the reality is that you have to deal with them even if you think they have amoeba brains.
You want to mitigate the risk of head injury but you are dismissive of roadcraft to migitate the poor driving.
Tbh I don’t think you are interested in what others have to say on the subject of roadcraft.
Quite. The subtlety of the
Quite. The subtlety of the argument of the controlled wobble is that you should still be in the same place as if you hadn’t wobbled, assuming you time it in advance, and you hold a line as being passed, but the motorist can’t know that is your intent. So you are no worse off than riding “carefully”, and may be better off.
Riding in the centre of the lane does have the negative that if a motorist is intent on passing or they are truely incompetent or malicious, then they have less or no avoiding space. No motorist aside from the criminally insane* intends to run a cyclist over, but a lack of consideration that there could be a slow moving object in the road can lead to serious misjudgements, hence the need, if you are going to ride, as per the HWC, in a strong position to be seen, you have to do so actively and be prepared to adjust your strategy as you assess the way a driver is approaching. This can be as simple as hearing the note of the engine change, which indicates an acknowledgement of a hazard to be dealt with, but where mirrors (and shoulder checks if the distance allows) help. If you know someone is dealing with you, you can move to a position where they can pass more readily when conditions are correct. Conversely, if you don’t hear, you can adopt other strategies, including the “worried shoulder check” if there is sufficient space, or the move to the edge in a controlled way on the assumption that a close pass is better than the worse alternative.
I think you hint at the problem with any defensive strategy that people describe, it is not sufficient to describe an action or road position, but also you need to convey the potential risks and mitigation of the risks. A simple example is the ASL, where the theory is that you can take a strong position before a junction, but you have to counter that with the knowledge that many drivers do not see it as anything but anti-social queue-jumping and may be triggered into retaliation, therefore it is a judgement call as to whether to avail yourself of the ASL, regardless of the theory.
* Allowing also for a momentary lapse of sanity when inconvenienced by a cyclist.
I’d say embrace the wobble.
I’d say embrace the wobble. Someone gave me this advice, it sounded ridiculous (as well as potentially more dangerous). I tried it and unscientifically it does seem a quick flick of the bars and some lateral movement can get a driver’s attention and sometimes they then think twice about an overtake.
This has mostly been in city contexts though – can’t say if it’s any good on a country A-road. And it relies on you detecting or suspecting an unobservant driver.
FWIW I’ve not got a radar nor do I intend to. I don’t (yet…) have mirrors on all my bikes. Mind you I don’t always wear a helmet either.
Possible prevention seems a better course than possible mitigation. No reason not to do both of course. But some movement in the visual field might “remind” some “momentarily distracted drivers” there’s someone there.
I do agree that if someone driving really hasn’t looked (phone etc. / only looking for cars) or doesn’t give a shit, then there may be little you can do. (Hence helmet as possible mitigation – if everything else has failed).
What excuses a lawyer might dish out – possibly, if it ever makes it to court – some years later is not a huge concern. Alreadly too late for me or my relatives. People will make up all kinds of nonsense or just lie. Sadly they are most unlikely to be challenged by your brief and will be believed by a magistrate or judge and jury. Cycling on the road is an alien concept to most – and in itself a sign of recklessness to some.
I see HoarseMann has answered
I see HoarseMann has answered this.
But what will you do in this scenario ?
hirsute wrote:
What scenario?
Your scenario – the one you
Your scenario – the one you outlined to me – “If someone came hammering up behind you to squeeze through a space that isn’t there, what should you do?”
What do you do and how do you know that it is about to happen ?
hirsute wrote:
Do everything I can just to stay upright. Very similar to what the rider in front in the video did. Both hands on the bars, head up and forward, try to stay as stable as possible.
And you don’t know it’s about to happen. That’s part of what makes it so incredibly dangerous.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
And that’s what HoarseMann is saying the mirror / radar combo helps with. I don’t use either, but have considered a beautiful Berthoud
quiff wrote:
So the radar/mirror helps you to pucker before you get close passed, rather than during? Money well spent then.
I can see the logic of having a mirror for seeing if something is approaching before changing road position (e.g. turning right). Personally I just turn my head, but I acknowledge that others are less stable or confident, and that’s fine.
The video ad for the Garmin Varia radar is amusing imo. https://www.garmin.com/en-GB/p/518151/pn/010-01509-10
The Varia has as much impact to the scenario as Indy in Raiders. Sure it’s there, but it has no effect on how any of the road users act – certainly not the motor vehicle.
Your are the Ravenous
Your are the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal and I claim my £5.
The helmets might have though
The helmets might have though.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I’m aware of that study. The thing that I find most interesting is that given the conclusion along the lines of “drivers pass closer to cyclist that wear helmets”, that some people think the logical thing to do is to not wear a helmet, and not educate drivers to give cyclists safe space whether they’re wearing a helmet or not.
I just don’t fathom the logic of the former.
In any case, a helmet doesn’t help me when I’m only close-passed (and not actually hit). It’s my trousers that need changing!
hirsute wrote:
No, they really didn’t.
I was not suggesting that
I was not suggesting that they should get radar merely pointing out how radar can be useful. There was a recent review of a radar unit on here
https://road.cc/content/review/magene-l508-radar-tail-light-298439
one thing that has been posed about radar ‘what are you going to do with the data?’
So simply referencing the previous discussions.
I’m no more suggesting radar than Fignon’s ghost is suggesting a rear light. “I wear a cateye viz 450 on my rear.”
It’s up to each person to think about their risk appetite and what they want to have or not to have.
When someone is behind me at 104kph I really want to know if they are slowing, otherwise I know I’m going to have to deal with it rapidly.
As to a hedge, well that was somewhat tongue in cheek – certainly reflects comments people have made in the past about having to do an emergency evasion of a terrible driver. After all we all have to “anticipate the reckless driving of others” – that’s just roadcraft.
For hedges see also
https://road.cc/content/news/bus-driver-pleads-guilty-after-cyclist-pushed-hedge-292901
Ridden around Lyndhurst and
Ridden around Lyndhurst and there is a toxic mix of entitled locals, frustrated tourists and some areas where you have to use main roads to traverse to the next ride.
Our mob are confident group riders and pretty motorist friendly, but we had some nasty incidents in the area, including the lunatic woman van driver who deliberately tried to drive a mate off the road through roadworks because “he wasn’t on the cycle lane” the incomplete, exposed sand base of its being built was the very reason for the road works.
Nobody was having a go or victim blaming, just noting that for safety, trying to be helpful to motorists often leads to this sort of driving error, and as you found out, few motorists are ever delayed over the length of their journey by a cyclist, even if they are slowed temporarily, especially in a place like the New Forest. I mean those horses don’t take any shit, do they? It is tempting to dress one in lycra and see how differently drivers react.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Aha! Caught you! (Oh no – I’ve become a vigilante!)
I thought the issue was that quite a few of them were killed and injured by
cyclistsdrivers every year – so unfortunately they were indeed taking shit?Deaths are going down you
Deaths are going down you know (based on a 2 year extrapolation)
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/23273784.new-forest-animal-deaths-caused-drivers-drops-41-2022/
(with a further 19 animals being injured compared to 15 last year.)
I’m glad to hear that! It’s
I’m glad to hear that! It’s about time these dangerous horses called a truce to their war on the motorist. Oh – you meant fewer horse deaths?
Clearly all these dark-haired / skinned animals need hi-vis.
No, they’re throwing themselves into the roads!
But they take the lane. Think
But they take the lane. Think how bad it would be if they loitered in the gutter.
Just like to say thank you
Just like to say thank you for taking the time and effort to report this to the police. I would very much like to hear what action they took if you can find out. Also thank you fo sharing it with us and explaining your thoughts. It’s a shame that some drivers choose to put cyclists lives at risk rather than slow down and take a few seconds more for their journey (in this case it would have cost them nothing due to the traffic jams). It’s even more galling when you have gone out of your way to be considerate to them.
I am glad you are all OK.