Near Miss of the Day 631: Oncoming lorry driver forces cyclist onto pavement

hirsute wrote:

Did the police confiscate the illegal scooter seen at the end ?!

How would they have known where to go to confiscate it? Perform a locator spell on the video?

Just my jaded view of the Police ! Get the scooter forget the drivers!

Nigel Garrage wrote:

To be clear, are you advocating for top lawyer Nick Freeman's idea of a tabard-based registration for e-scooterists?

Are you deliberately completely missing his point?

Steve K wrote:

Are you deliberately completely missing his point?

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.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Completely relevant. Let me explain the logic to you and Steve:

• Hirsute asked "Did the police confiscate the illegal scooter seen at the end ?!"
• In order for the police to confiscate the illegal scooter they would need to identify the perpetrator.
• There are currently no laws to force escooterists to identify themselves, therefore there is a gap in effective legislation to solve this issue of criminality.
• Top lawyer Nick Freeman's idea of registration tabards for escooterists would bridge the gap.
• Therefore Hirsute's question is really a trojan horse for adopting Nick Freeman's position on registration.

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?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

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 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:

ChrisB200SX 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.

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.

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.

Wish I had kept quiet

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for-users#trial-areas

No trial in Wiltshire.

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:

Pathetic effort from Nigel.

He knows using his Freeman reference he winds up the forum.  That is the only reason he does it.

Very tedious.

Fixed it!

Do bears shit in the woods?

Steve K wrote:

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).

Drivers 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.

Rendel Harris wrote:

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."

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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

lesterama wrote:

Don't feed the troll

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...