Near Miss of the Day 847: Careless caravan close call causes cyclists concern

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 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 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:

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.

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 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:

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.

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:

Hardly a farce. It's unhelpful to suggest a cycling helmet could mitigate a brain injury

I think you might be putting your helmet on wrong. It's not supposed to be strapped so far south.

ShutTheFrontDawes 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.

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:

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.

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'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 losses their minds! *Note the use of might here, it's an important word in this sentence.

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:

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

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=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.

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 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 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:

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

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 "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 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:

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.

 

I hope you wear a helmet when you dive into that hedge.

You understand it is not a literal hedge.

hirsute wrote:

You understand it is not a literal hedge.

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:

So how exactly does this wonderful data, be it from a mirror or a radar, help a cyclist?

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:

A radar & mirror enables me to ride in a very prominent position

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:

HoarseMann wrote:

A radar & mirror enables me to ride in a very prominent position

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?

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:

active role in managing my visibility and position

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this please? Do you weave about to present a bigger target or something?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

active role in managing my visibility and position  Can you elaborate on what you mean by this please? Do you weave about to present a bigger target or something?

He did answer this initially.

HoarseMann wrote:

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.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

active role in managing my visibility and position  Can you elaborate on what you mean by this please? Do you weave about to present a bigger target or something?

He did answer this initially.

HoarseMann wrote:

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.

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:

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.

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 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:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

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.

Because then they're more likely to notice you and maybe move out a bit?  Sure - why not?

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.