Today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows the moment a cyclist had to jump onto a pavement as a lorry driver, travelling behind a car, came in the opposite direction taking up the available width of the road, narrowed due to cars parked on the right.
Anita, the road.cc reader who sent in the clip, said: “I just left my house and as I turned onto the main road I approached some park cars on the right meaning oncoming traffic would have to move over to pass them – not really a problem but bear in mind I had high vis clothing and a LED daytime running light a car came through followed by a truck …
“I would have thought he should have given way or was I at fault because I had my normal head down and wanted to carry on?”
“Needless to say when he carried on I had to hop onto the pavement as he was uncomfortably close.
“Passed to Wiltshire Traffic Police as a close pass incident but they were not interested.
“Sad to say just after this there were two accidents involving school age children on Ermin Street – local people will know about these,” she added.
Now, Highway Code Rule 163 provides that road users should “give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road.”
Often, though, what the Highway Code says and the driving a cyclist experiences out on the road are two entirely different things, of course.
Given that the rider here was wearing hi-viz and had a flashing light, the driver should have seen her and stopped and waited before the parked cars to let her through.
In this case, as you can see, the driver didn’t – and given the truck driver was following the car through that narrow section, they may well not have anticipated anything coming the other way, far less someone on a bike (which is not, of course, to say that they shouldn’t be looking).
If anything, it’s an episode that serves as a reminder that if you’re a cyclist coming up to this kind of situation where the road is narrowed due to parked cars and there are vehicles coming in the opposite direction, even if their drivers should according to the Highway Code wait it’s better to play it defensively and pull over until those vehicles have passed.
> 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
39 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 631: Oncoming lorry driver forces cyclist onto pavement”
You could see that the lorry
You could see that the lorry would be following the car. The driver would have seen the cyclist but as the lorry is many times bigger, they aren’t going to stop.
That the police were not interested is no surprise. Are any police forces interested ?
It has nothing to do with the
It has nothing to do with the lorry being many times bigger, but more to do with the drivers regard for other people being many times smaller
Not TVP. In response to a
Not TVP. In response to a recent submission, I was told that the Highway Code “is guidance, not law” and drivers do this all the time.
He brushed aside my response about Careless Driving including driving “without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road”, and “A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving”.
Overtaking into the path of a cyclist who then has to brake and/or swerve out of the way clearly fits the criteria. But it’s obviously too much effort to follow the actual law.
I’m seeing this, more and
I’m seeing this, more and more often – people seem to have little regard for rules or safety, at all, and just go barrelling into reduced width sections where they are plainly required to yield.
I swear that my car has started breathing in…
Roadcc wrote:
This is correct – it was almost inevitable that the lorry would follow the car and the cyclist should have anticipated it as a matter of common sense and self-preservation. It isn’t the fact that you’re a cyclist that this type of incident can occur – anyone using the road comes up against the same type of driving time and time again regardless of whether driving a motorised vehicle or riding a bike.
And as has been pointed out: “If you’ve already started your overtake, oncoming traffic should give way to you. Likewise, if an oncoming driver has committed to an overtake, you should give way to them. In either instance, which side of the road the vehicles are parked on doesn’t matter.”
It’s all a matter of common sense and courtesy really.
Aah my old friend Nigel! You
Aah my old friend Nigel! You went so quiet after being wrong by 4 orders of magnitude on the covid thread I thought you had been banned again!
Obviously you were just so ashamed of your ignorance you decided to go dark.
Care to elaborate on your slur about long covid sufferers yet? Been able to look up the risks of long covid for athletes on pubmed or the bmj yet?
I await further spewings of ignorance with interest.
best wishes
xx
Don’t feed the troll
Don’t feed the troll
lesterama wrote:
You are of course correct, but when the troll is posting medical opinions that are patently false, and are so wrong they may lead some people to come to harm, unfortunately I feel I have an ethical duty to point this out. I suppose I should be glad he realised the error of his ways and just leave it at that. As ever there is xkcd for that…
Hate to say it, but it looks
Hate to say it, but it looks to me like the car had already pulled out to overtake the parked vehicles along time before the cyclist has got anywhere near the parked cars.
At about 21 seconds, both oncoming vehicles are well along the obstruction, and the cyclists is a good 15 – 20 meters (roughly) from the first obstruction, and with plenty of time to stop.
I’m going to suggest that the cyclist is at fault for not seeing the truck in time to react; the truck – about 2.2m wide and about 3.6m tall and white, would have been clearly visible to the rider; had the cyclist have stopped when they saw the truck coming behind the car, there would have been no risk.
Sorry, but I feel this one is down to poor roadcraft and anticipation on behalf of the cyclist.
I think thats too harsh, it
I think thats too harsh, it would be wrong for Anita to come away from this thinking they were at fault in anyway here IMO, they dealt with it as best you can in that situation I honestly dont know presented with the same setup how Id have done much different or handled it any better.
Whilst Id agree the car is probably already commited to the overtake before you as any vehicle be that cyclist or car coming the other way can claim any priority over them, and if it had just been the car alone this wouldnt have been anything noteworthy at all.
But I do feel the truck could have stopped,theyd have seen the cyclist for sure so we shouldnt make excuses for them, probably would have had to stop if it had been anything other than a cyclist barring the might is right rule approach some adopt, but the problem is the car coming through makes you keep so over to the left, so the truck grabs the opportunity because “theres still enough room for both of us” even if it then gets really awkard for the cyclist because who wants to be left facing down a juggernaut on a bike.
unfortunately yes the outcome is chalk it down to experience, but all that experience tells you is expect it to happen, which isnt a solution really is it ?
I think the fact that the
I think the fact that the truck is being driven by a professional driver should sway the balance against him – (s)he has a clear view from some distance and as a professional I would expect him/her to demonstrate a higher standard.
Agree, however, that this is all too normal whatever mode of transport you are in (except perhaps a marked police car?)
I agree, looking at the
I agree, looking at the footage it appears as if the truck is already alongside the furthest parked car before the cyclist reaches the nearest parked car. So either stop or move onto the pavement for a short stretch if it’s clear.
I think the problem is that a
I think the problem is that a driver would have given way to the the lorry. Drivers tend to negotiate right of way on a pragmatic basis. Drivers rarely negotiate with cyclists and therefore as a cyclist I am more likely to use my right of way. IMO, the HC is clear the cyclist had the right of way in the first instance. Give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked cars. Once the lorry driver realised the cyclist was not going to give up their right of way he should have slowed right down and if necessary stopped rather than expect the cyclist to take all the evasive action.
“Once the lorry driver
“Once the lorry driver realised the cyclist was not going to give up their right of way he should have slowed right down and if necessary stopped rather than expect the cyclist to take all the evasive action.”
Spot on. Disappointing reaction from the police. They are just encouraging bullying behaviour on the road which means we all suffer. Giving in to bullies is never the right thing to do.
While the car had committed
While the car had committed to passing the parked vehicles before the cyclist was there (and completed the manoeuver such that the cyclist wasn’t (significantly) inconvienienced, i.e. was fine) the highway code EXPRESSLY states that just because the vehicle in front can complete a manouever doesn’t mean you can. I am fairly sure that of incidents risking collisions this attitude (the vehicle in front was fine so I will be too) is top of my list (n.b. my daily commute goes through a set of lights that flare out before narrowing onto a slight corner. It only has sufficient space for one car to overtake safely given normal driving, but that doesn’t stop the second (and often third) trying dangerously)
The HGV hasn’t reached the parked car at 21 seconds. It starts to pull out early, but only reaches at about 23s. Only a second before the cyclist (who per HW code has priority).
Having said this, vehicles failing to give way for cyclists when passing parked cars, especially when following another vehicle that can get past before the cyclist reaches them, is so common that this should be predictible (given it happens all the bloody time…).
Of course driving such that cyclists (or pedestrians or motorbikes) have to yield (where the HW code states they have priority) or be run over should be specifically defined as careless (or preferably dangerous) driving. Also where the cyclist does yield, that doing so prevented any hazard should NOT be permitted as any part of a defence.
A marginal call, this one, I
A marginal call, this one, I’d say; I would have waited for my own safety and probably shouted an ironic “You’re most welcome, don’t mention it!” as the lorry passed. As the current rules of the road stand, the “give way to oncoming vehicles” instruction quoted could equally be said by the truck driver to apply to the cyclist.
This is why we need a hierarchy of responsibility on the road; just as on the water steam gives way to sail (or at least that used to be the case), cyclists should give way to pedestrians, motorcyclists to cyclists, cars to motorcyclists, and HGVs to everyone. It’s simple common sense that where a small, vulnerable road user comes up against a huge, armoured one the larger one should give way, even if they have an arguable case of “I was here first.”
Rendel Harris wrote:
Which is pretty much what the revisions to the HC say isn’t it? Maybe not so explicity, but the hierarchy of road users is similar in intent I would say, so perhaps there are moves to get us to somewhere where the weak are protected and the powerful must wield their power with responsibility.
They do, yes – waiting to see
They do, yes – waiting to see how much they are “should not ” and how much “must not” – I assume “must nots” require a change in the law and can’t imagine drivers rushing to read and follow the revised code unless it’s backed with legal sanctions.
In the car I would have
In the car I would have yielded as the truck was already established overtaking the parked vehicles and trucks are generally less well equiped for sudden changes of direction and speed. I’d be conscious of forcing the truck back towards those parked vehicles and distracting the driver from the possibility of pedestrians between those cars. On a bicycle, even easier to read the situation, slow up or move over. Just one of those don’t push your priority scenarios, though a nod or wave of acknowledgment from the driver would smooth things over.
When they come at you that close from behind however….
I would say that the car and
I would say that the car and lorry should have stopped because they should have seen the cyclist and realised they could not complete passing the parked cars without forcing the cyclist to give way – and therefore they should have given way. But once they are committed to the manoeuvre, it probably switches and the cyclist has to give way (for their own safety as much as the rules). I think I’d have taken exactly the same approach as Rendel.
Steve K wrote:
— Steve KDrivers invariably commit to such a manoeuvre because they know they can force the cyclist to give way. It happens all the time. Might is right, as hirsute has said.
There are drivers who don’t and will pull in or slow down. When they make any effort then I always show my appreciation.
Just goes to show, even when
Just goes to show, even when you technically have priority you may have to give way to be safe. Personally, I go on red-alert when I see a truck nearby, what with all their ‘blind spots’ exaggerated turning and poor stopping abilities.
Did the police confiscate the
Did the police confiscate the illegal scooter seen at the end ?!
Might is right I’m afraid. I tend to try and make it a little awkward for the driver so they have to slow a bit and maybe think about whether they should have done what they did whilst giving myself an escape route.
hirsute wrote:
How would they have known where to go to confiscate it? Perform a locator spell on the video?
Just my jaded view of the
Just my jaded view of the Police ! Get the scooter forget the drivers!
To be clear, are you
To be clear, are you advocating for top lawyer Nick Freeman’s idea of a tabard-based registration for e-scooterists?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Are you deliberately completely missing his point?
Steve K wrote:
Of course he is, that’s how he (t)rolls, he has a small collection of tedious fixations that must be shoehorned into every comment section regardless of relevance.
Completely relevant. Let me
Completely relevant. Let me explain the logic to you and Steve:
Pathetic effort from Nigel.
Pathetic effort from Nigel.
He knows using his Freeman reference winds up the forum. That is the only reason he does it.
Very tedious.
Sniffer wrote:
Fixed it!
Nigel Garrage wrote:
That’s not right though.
eScooters are illegal on public roads unless they are registered via government approved schemes. This has nothing to do with the rider or registration thereof.
You’ll note that there is no legislation for illegal motor vehicle operators to identify themselves full stop.
To be clear, are you advocating the idea of a tabard-based registration for all motorists?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Chris, that’s a good – socratic – attempt to undermine my impeccable logic, but unfortunately your comment doesn’t work without registration.
The only way to identify an illegal vehicle is by having a registration scheme in place to identify legal ones. Without registration, there wouldn’t be an effective mechanism to differentiate between legal and illegal vehicles.
The same holds true for scooters. Without registration for legal scooters, there would be no mechanism for identifying illegal ones. Hirsute has claimed it was an illegal scooter, but he really has insufficient evidence that is the case. The scooterist could claim it was in fact legal or unpowered, and evade the wheels of justice.
If escooterists had to wear tabards at all times, the scooterist in the video would doubtlessly have already been captured and brought to justice if he was guilty of illegal escootering without aforementioned tabard.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
If the scooter is motorised then it is only legal if it is part of one of a handful of pilot rental schemes taking place in some urban areas; all other motorised scooters (electric or petrol) are illegal.
And unpowered scooters are tiny. No way was that an unpowered scooter.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Your “logic” is, once again, entirely flawed. Legal escooters can be identified because they are registered via government approved schemes. All others are illegal to use in public places.
To be clear, are you advocating the idea of a tabard-based registration for all motorists?
A driver of any illegal vehicle could just as easily, by your logic, claim their vehicle was human-powered, legal, or not even their vehicle, and evade the scales of justice.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Thanks for that response – unfortunately the current registration scheme is insufficient on two fronts:
To be clear, I’m not advocating tabards for anything. If you read back up the list of comments you’ll see that user “hirsute” began the conversation. If you wanted to easily apprehend illegal escooterists, as hirsute demanded, tabards would be the most obvious solution.
Wish I had kept quiet
Wish I had kept quiet
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for-users#trial-areas
No trial in Wiltshire.
Do bears shit in the woods?
Do bears shit in the woods?
“Often, though, what the
“Often, though, what the Highway Code says and the
driving a cyclist experiences out on the roadPolice enforce are two entirely different things, of course.”Fixed that for you!