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

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

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.

https://www.rivbike.com/pages/getting-cars-to-scooch-over-and-helmets

Grant Peterson wrote:

There’s an old bicycle-safety saw that says “be predictable,” but it’s not a slam dunk. Your first task is to stay alive, and unpredictability can help.

When you’re riding on a bike trail and there’s a wobbly child on a bike ahead of you—or an unleashed puppy or toddler, you’re extra careful passing, because it’s unpredictable.

When drivers aren’t sure what the cyclist was going to do, they were more careful around them. Wouldn’t you be more careful driving around a wobbly rider?

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:

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. 

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:

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.

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:

ShutTheFrontDawes 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.

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.

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:

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.

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 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=hawkinspeter wrote:

 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.

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 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.  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 this.

But what will you do in this scenario ?

hirsute wrote:

I see HoarseMann has answered this.

But what will you do in this scenario ?

What scenario?

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:

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 ?

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 you don't know it's about to happen. That's part of what makes it so incredibly dangerous.

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:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

And you don't know it's about to happen. That's part of what makes it so incredibly dangerous.

And that's what HoarseMann is saying the mirror / radar combo helps with. I don't use either, but have considered a beautiful Berthoud   

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 Bugblatter Beast of Traal and I claim my £5.

The helmets might have though. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

The helmets might have though. 

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:

I see HoarseMann has answered this.

But what will you do in this scenario ?

No, they really didn't.

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-push...

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:

... Our mob ...

Aha!  Caught you!  (Oh no - I've become a vigilante!)

IanMSpencer wrote:

...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.

I thought the issue was that quite a few of them were killed and injured by cyclists drivers every year - so unfortunately they were indeed taking shit?

Deaths are going down you know (based on a 2 year extrapolation)

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/23273784.new-forest-animal-deaths-cause...

(with a further 19 animals being injured compared to 15 last year.)

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?

dailyecho wrote:

A total of 41 New Forest animals were killed or injured and destroyed in 2022 ...This includes 34 ponies, three pigs, two cows and two donkeys with a further 19 animals being injured compared to 15 last year.

Some 26 of these incidents happened in daylight, 13 in twilight and 43 in the dark.

Clearly all these dark-haired / skinned animals need hi-vis.

dailyecho wrote:

Gilly Jones, from New Forest Roads Awareness, claims some drivers have "no regard" for the speed limit. "... Speed is still an issue. Part of our work with Operation Mountie has shown that unfortunately some drivers have no regard for the 40-mph speed limit."

No, they're throwing themselves into the roads!

But they take the lane. Think how bad it would be if they loitered in the gutter.

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.

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 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.