Near Miss of the Day 932: Experienced cyclist says this near-collision "was by far the scariest I've had while cycling"... but police take no further action

I'm sure that's a factor - but surely it's not a big enough blind spot to obscure the car already stationary at the roundabout, which should have given them pause for thought... 

I know that the A pillar on this vehicle causes a significant blind spot which responsible drivers appreciate immediately and mitigate by moving their heads about, as opposed to remaining unthinkingly slob-still and complaining that they already have too much to do with all the eating, drinking, smoking, adjusting the tech-screens and arguing with people on the phone to worry about bloody cyclists, which could explain is seized upon by the overmanned (in order to ensure that there are insufficient staff to look at video complaints) force Driver Excuses Squad to 'justify and NFA' the near miss

Might be useful as an additional 'blame somebody else' excuse for drivers for there to be regulations in place to ensure all vehicles meet standards in terms of giving drivers all round visibility to reduce accidents even though the obvious overarching problem is that the drivers can't be bothered to look for anything except vehicles which might damage them and their precious 'motah'

The A pillar is that thick to protect drivers, with the perverse effect that other people, especially cyclists, are endangered.  Also, making the driver feel safer means that they will take more risks, which further endangers other people.

The best way to improve road safety is to remove all the safety devices for drivers, including making the A pillars out of straw and very thin.

There are regulations on getting a licence that require drivers to look all round - this involves moving at least the head in any car.

Reminders might be needed.

Yes, I had a number of professional standards complaints upheld against Cambridgeshire Police for simply not investigating. That was when they decided that "data privacy" prevented them from providing outcomes to victims. They have consistently received ~3000 third party video submissions a year. West Yorks have 30% prosecution rate, Cambridge was 0.08% for 2023 & 0% for 2024. That's why they don't provide feedback.

Well done! It's not possible in Lancashire, because of a hopeless PCC. Who upheld your complaints- the police's own 'Professional Standards'?!

Yes, after a fashion. They ignored the Prof Stds compliant until I tweet-shamed the PCC. Found that there were "grounds for disciplinary action against both officers", but didn't do so as one retired the week before they concluded the 2 year Investigation & the other one was on.long-term sick. Now it is not possible to complain that they haven't investigated as they refuse to provide information on whether they have.

I had a number of complaints upheld. Their decision has now to tell me they will stop processing my complaints, even if the PCC tells them to.

I had a number of complaints upheld. Their decision [is] now to tell me they will stop processing my complaints, even if the PCC tells them to

John Tizard is the PCC for the police in your region. I think a stiff letter to him should do the trick

Whereas I think it will do no good at all- if this advice is followed, please let us know what Tizard/ minions said

I invite you all to join me in despising the police! (and the PCC)

simon59 wrote:

I live on Bedfordshire and the Beds, Herts and Cambs road policing unit refuse to say whether they have taken action in any case. And in the odd case where I have been injured they have decided not to take a tion. They wonder why the police are not trusted.

Simon59 - John Tizard is the PCC for the police in your region. I think a stiff letter to him should do the trick. This is what he is paid to do - to overseer police action on behalf of constituients like yourself.

cmedred wrote:

That the driver didn't see is a presumption. It's equally possible the driver believed, as many drivers seem to believe, that MVs have the right-of-way everywhere and cyclists should have the "good sense" to stop for them. 

Very true, and add to that the fact that many drivers, despite the fact that apparently there are swarms of us clad in lycra breaking speed limits (that don't exist) everywhere, seem to assess cyclist speed at a value around what their own was the last time they were on a bike aged thirteen - he's 25 metres away, I've got at least three seconds to get out before he gets here...

Came here to say: 

1. what burt said - why on earth would you roll out while the car already at the roundabout is still

2. I know Geraint saw it happening at the time but, based on the front / rear video perspectives alone, this made me think of times I've reviewed my footage afterwards and been horrified of stuff happening behind me that I was blissfully unaware of on the ride   

brooksby wrote:

I presume that this was the old "only looking for motor cars" situation?  A cyclist probably wasn't even something that they were looking for on the roundabout, so they didn't see them (or register them).

I've eyeballed drivers making eye contact with them, and still had them pulling out or doing a right turn right across my path like I wasn't there so many times. Utterly Infuriating

Rendel Harris wrote:

I've been thinking for sometime now that give way lines are actually a ridiculous concept at busy junctions, relying as they do on the driver/cyclist to mark their own homework in the sense that they say you can go ahead and roll into the junction without stopping as long as you decide there's nothing coming. [...] Surely much more sensible to have stop lines and if people still can't check properly before pulling away from them, traffic lights.

This is smart thinking (for road safety) - and mirrors the approach taken in "safe system" schemes:

• Roundabouts have to have strict maximum motor traffic flow and speed limits.
• Above certain speed / flows, lane-changing should be physically prevented (note: motorcyclists have raised concerns about these though).  Beyond that either everything should be signal controlled or (better but costly / space-intensive) an interchange is needed where motorists don't cross e.g. at right angles.  There's just the merge back in to deal with, where all vehicles are going in the same direction.
• On those of course a completely separate (and excellent!) alternative is needed for vulnerable road users - for multi-lane roundabouts this is always done.
• If a "mixed" roundabout is possible speeds should be physically managed (small radius / "adverse camber").  A few people believe that the safest design is one which does not signal cyclist priority, thus putting the decision to proceed or not and the critical decision back in the hands of the cyclists. (Note - "but how will we ever get across then" shouldn't be a concern; if it's that busy there should be a design with complete separation).

The point of roadabouts is that they offer higher throughput rates (still the #1 goal for UK traffic designers I think) with pretty good safety - even where there are impacts the speed is usually slowed.  But they're not magic - even ignoring vulnerable road users if capacity or speed is high enough in the UK we apply traffic light controls (see many gyratories).

I don't see that throughout rate would be hugely impacted by stop line instead of give way? It only needs a momentary pause after all.