The video featured in our Near Miss of the Day series today shows the heart-stopping moment when a pair of cyclists are confronted with the driver of a skip lorry coming the other way on a narrow road with cars parked on the near side of the vehicle, squeezing both riders between the lorry and a hedge and somehow not hitting either of them.
The incident, filmed by road.cc reader Cyclocelestial, happened in Mortimer, Berkshire on 7 October.
“The driver started to overtake the parked cars before the two cyclists came into view but could have applied the brakes and moved towards the gap on the left,” Cyclocelestial said.
“It was not reported to the police but I reported it to a manager at R. Collard in Reading who agreed to speak to the driver about it.
“However he did not want to see the video as ‘we have a camera in the cab’.”
Incidents of this type often attract comments along the lines of how the cyclists should perhaps have anticipated the approaching vehicle and pulled over to let it past.
It’s easy to take such a view when you watch the footage, but in a live scenario things are seldom that clear-cut.
For example, while the camera is facing straight ahead and recording what’s happening, that may not necessarily be what the cyclist is seeing in real time, and they may not have seen the lorry straight away.
There’s also the fact that in this instance the cyclists are riding at a decent clip and by the time the situation has been assessed and a decision made over what action to take, it may be too late, not to mention too dangerous, to try to brake in time for the skip lorry driver to clear those parked cars.
> 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
95 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 644: Skip lorry driver almost hits two cyclists”
To be fair the skip lorry was
To be fair the skip lorry was already there, and the cyclist videoing this should have stopped to wait, as he would have had to do in a car.
Have to agree. Yes there was
Have to agree. Yes there was a potential gap but cyclists could also have stopped as lorry was already commited. I can see the Simon has already anticpated these reponses but wouldn’t the same qualifications have applied to the driver as well, not easy to see the cyclists coming, reaction times etc.
committed to the first gap,
committed to the first gap, not commited to the second, no problem at al in stopping between the two parked cars. Even just coming to a complete stop would be fine. let the cyclists squeeze past a staionary lorry if they want, they risk and control is all theirs.
Pyro Tim wrote:
The only reason the skip lorry was there was because it was being driven too fast on the wrong side of the road. A more moderate pace which allowed for the obstacles on its side of the road would have allowed the driver to pull in. Instead the driver just went thundering through and didn’t even moderate their speed to take account of the events unfolding in front of them. The cyclists, on the other hand, were proceeding at a reasonable pace for the conditions on their side of the road – right up until the driver decided to ignore good practice. A near miss like that on the building site would be unacceptable and have consequences, but as a knut of the road it’s a differnt story
It’s true the driver was
It’s true the driver was commited but that is not the only consideration. With the bend and parked cars, they should have slowed down a bit to mitigate anyone coming the otherway given they were on the wrong side of the road.
But those few seconds are precious.
I don’t like the term
I don’t like the term “committed” on the roads. It makes it sound like they’re pilots at V1 on a runway. If you’ve “committed” yourself to be in a risky position, you should have ruled out all other options. V1, by definition, means you should not stop a take-off. There are few circumstances in a road vehicle where “stop” should ever be ruled out. It certainly should not have been here. That goes for both parties, but the onus was on the HGV driver.
I used committed as that was
I used committed as that was the phrase used by Alsosomniloquism
When I arrive near my house, the road bends to the right and there are parked cars to overtake. The number of folk who fail to slow is about 98% – they just carry on at speed – what I call ‘committed’.
My favourite was when I couldn’t get past the parked cars as I could see someone coming towards me and I pulled in then a young lad decided he would overtake (on an estate road it comes to dead end !). I did mouth some choice words at him as he slowly reversed back past me when he found the other driver coming towards him !
Indeed. There was plainly
Indeed. There was plainly ample time for the cyclists to slow down in the distance they could see to be clear, or for the truck to stop. Nothing to see here…
There was plainly ample time
There was plainly ample time for the driver to stop. There was ample time for the cyclists to stop had the lorry been parked on the road when first they saw it. However the driver was driving at them and continued to do so, and they could not possibly have stopped in time. And even if they had they would still have been endangered by the driver.
Most likely since the driver
Most likely since the driver had a place where he might have pulled in the cyclists were waiting for that to happen. Once they realised the driver was just trucking on they were then a bit close for a sudden stop. Benefit of hindsight says a more cautious approach from the start would seem prudent by both parties. For the cyclists simply putting out the anchor at the later point probably didn’t seem safe since you don’t want a skid towards oncoming vehicle.
On to the driver. Difficult to judge the lorry’s speed – didn’t appear to be hammering through but given the narrow gap if I was driving I’d:
a) be going slowly and be prepared to react to oncoming traffic. The lorry is on the wrong side of the road – which appears to curve to the right – meaning the slight lines aren’t very long (driver sitting on right after all).
b) when other traffic appeared I wouldn’t just keep on trucking since collision speed is theirs plus yours.
Again hard to tell with the camera but a conservative 4 seconds from when the driver’s side of the cab appears to when the cyclist reaches the truck so there was some time for both parties to react particularly if both had reduced speed immediately.
But maybe this was a very confident truck driver who didn’t feel threatened by the close pass from the cyclists however? Or “I saw the cyclists coming and the only safe thing I could do was speed up”?
The lorry driver should make
The lorry driver should make progress when it is safe to do so, being committed has no meaning. Traffic law is irrelevant as the driver is at work and is therefore in breach of law by taking actions that put others at risk.
The revised Highway Code establishes an order of priority that makes the lorry driver in the wrong.
Any decent and competent management would be having strong words, a safety oriented one would be sending him for retraining due to such an unsafe act, this is the bottom of the pyramid that leads to death. The actions of the cyclists have no bearing, they merely presented the hazard to which the driver should have both anticipated and responded. Whether they were wise or not does not matter.
Had it been a car on social activities then different considerations apply.
Near Miss of the Day 644:
Near Miss of the Day 644: Two cyclists almost hit skip lorry driver
Oh do go boil your head,
Oh do go boil your head, Nigel
If the cyclists had been a
If the cyclists had been a car, both vehicles would have had to come to a complete stop, then one of them would reverse to make space to pass.
The lorry driver would have thought nothing of doing this.
So why do drivers of large vehicles continue to creep forwards when confronted with an oncoming cyclist?! I often get it with tractors that have exposed wheels, which pose a significant risk to a cyclist even if moving slowly.
I think it ought to be a rule in the highway code that the larger vehicle must stop and allow the more vulnerable vehicle to negotiate a way past.
“If the cyclists had been a
“If the cyclists had been a car, both vehicles would have had to come to a complete stop, then one of them would reverse to make space to pass.
The lorry driver would have thought nothing of doing this.”
Pound to a pinch of snuff, it wouldn’t have been the skip driver reversing.
While yes, it is an offence to use the size of your vehicle to intimidate, there was always a rule (not sure if it was just a courtesy that we all had before the 2000’s kicked in) that you gave way to the larger vehicle as they had a harder job getting out the way.
I know I was certainly taught that way back in the ’80s; but then I learnt to drive on rural single track roads where a tractor/ hay waggon / combine harvester was potentially behind every bend.
Yes, the skip driver should have pulled in, but in reality, I very much doubt that they would have pulled in for anything other than a blue-lighting emergency services vehicle.
Quote:
Encourage him to submit the footage to Road.cc. It’s always good to see both sides.
Dont be stuck right on the
Dont be stuck right on the hedge going round a left bend . If they’d been out the skip driver would have seen them earlier. As another person has said the (slow moving) lorry was out in that lane already before they had any sight of the cyclist. Use your brakes . Protect yourself.
Erm, I realise from your
Erm, I realise from your comments on this and other videos that you still haven’t got your eyesight sorted, but looking again at all the video and you will see they are actually middle of their lane when the lorry comes into view. Rear cyclist was probably out a bit further. Unless you wanted them both to be cycling almost on the white central white line they were not “stuck right on the hedge”.
You and boo need to get your complaints against cyclists positioning in sync. In a previous NMOTD, he was catigating the cyclist for going around a left bend in the “middle of the road”.
well we must be watching a
well we must be watching a different video. and me and boo (whoever that is) arent of one mind.
also why no braking. its a huge oncoming hazard.
Erm, the speed of the cycles
Erm, the speed of the cycles slowed. Going downhill and not pedalling and Speed slows. That must have been a very very strong headwind or the laws of Physics do not apply in that very very localised area.
And boo is the other liar who looks at videos or states things on this forum that is contradictory to actual events.
“What X could have done
“What X could have done better” is a different column to “What X did wrong”.
What the cyclist could have done better:
What the cyclist did wrong:
What the driver could have done better:
What the driver did wrong:
GMBasix wrote:
Nigel Garrage wrote:
You missed your cue – “You all seem very sensitive – the driver politely left the cyclists more than one standard UK bike lane’s worth of space and courteously reduced his speed below 30!”
Having watched this a few
Having watched this a few times, from the perspective of both parties, I have to say that it is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. Yes, the skip truck could have been more cautious, or could have braked sharply and pulled in the gap. But the cyclists could have braked more easily than the truck, it is all about give and take on both sides.
This is false equivalence.
This is false equivalence. It is not about give and take on both sides, it’s more about give when you’re on the other side of the road.
They could both have done better, but only the HGV driver was wrong.
False equivalence.
False equivalence.
The cyclists present no danger to the truck driver so there is no need for them to slow down or stop, they probably did slow down in the face of the danger anyway though. The truck being driven in that manner presents quite a danger to the cyclists and that is why the driver should slow down considerably and possibly stop.
biker phil wrote:
The driver not only could have braked and utilised the gap but is required to do so because the cyclists have priority. The driver could have slowed far more easily than the cyclists as he was going uphill.
Quote:
Wouldn’t that fall under limiting your speed to where ‘you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear’, though?
I mean, they’d have been in the same position if there hadn’t been any gap in the parked cars for the truck to pull in to in the first place.
mdavidford wrote:
Wouldn’t that fall under limiting your speed to where ‘you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear’, though?
I mean, they’d have been in the same position if there hadn’t been any gap in the parked cars for the truck to pull in to in the first place.
It’s surely possible that they were travelling at a speed where they could safely stop before colliding with any oncoming traffic, but not safely stop sufficiently in front of the parked cars to let oncoming traffic through first. Essentially the same situation as when two drivers meet on a singletrack lane and one of them has to reverse to a passing place.
OnYerBike wrote:
If they could see that there are parked cars, but not see beyond them, then they can only see the road to be clear as far as the start of the parked cars – they should be proceeding on the assumption that there’s a possibility that something, obscured from their view, may be trying to pass those parked cars.
Of course the primary problem here is not the truck driver or the cyclists, but the people who have chosen to use the public road as car storage.
mdavidford wrote:
Spot on. Just rewatched and all the houses that I can see have drives and or garages. The point about “maintenance” elsewhere (e.g. trimming hedges) also chimes with me. Some otherwise perfectly adequate
cycle pathsshared active travel * paths near me have lost half their width because of this. I know councils are under the cosh. Mine (Edinburgh) is actually pretty good in remembering that in winter it gets frosty and sometimes snows but the “green things growing in spring and summer” one – not so much.* Sustrans are big in these parts – although likely they’ve only become big because they universally downplay “cycling” – and seem allergic to delimiting “cyclist” and “pedestrian” space – because us “active travellers” love to mingle…
Lorry driver was on the wrong
Lorry driver was on the wrong side of the road so should have proceeded cautiously and been prepared to pull in and stop. No if’s no but’s so enough with the victim blaming.
Call me old fashioned but the
Call me old fashioned but the Cyclist should have ceded priority to the vehicla that had already begun overtaking a row of parked cars.
You would’t have continued driving at that truck in a car; so why cycle towards it?
The reality is that most
The reality is that most drivers would have ended up doing an emergency stop as hazard perception is poor and they would have barreled on at 30+ mph.
That said, I think the cyclists were slow to react to a potential situation.
Legin wrote:
More like prehistoric than old fashioned. The cyclists had priority and the driver should have stopped. There was a gap in the row of parked cars which the driver ignored. Do you seriously think cyclists can stop as easily as a car driver?
Yep, common sense dictates
Yep, common sense dictates that lorry versus bike and rider is a very unequal equation. Barrelling on regardless is dangerous, whereas stopping would have meant a greatly reduced risk of potential injury and a 2-3 second stop.
The only danger would have been the rider behind ploughing into the back of the person in front, in which case I fully support the decision of the front rider in whether to continue forward.
Slight righteousness and maimed or dead is not a good look.
capedcrusader wrote:
Or… a skid and going down right in front of a lorry which someone has shown no inclination to stop?
The cyclists were going fast
The cyclists were going fast downhill and could not just stop, unlike the driver who could have done so easily. The driver was on the wrong side of the road, not the cyclists.
As you say, “Barrelling on regardless is dangerous, whereas stopping would have meant a greatly reduced risk of potential injury and a 2-3 second stop.”
So why didn’t the driver do that?
I do wonder if any of those blaming the cyclists have ever tried to stop in 2 seconds when travelling down a steep hill. This is supposed to be a cycling forum but you would hardly know it from some of the comments.
If the cyclists were going so
If the cyclists were going so fast around a blind corner that they could not easily stop then they were riding dangerously.
What if there had been a pedestrian in the road?
What if the lorry had been wider and had taken up the entire road with no room at all to pass?
The lorry driver should have stopped when it became apparent that the cyclists were unable to.
But the cyclists should never have put themselves in a situation where they were unable to stop if needed.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes. This is where the basic “road user” legal responsibility rests and I’d hope everyone would cycle / drive like that. And again far from the most worrying NMOTD.
I think the argument is expressed by the contention that because both should have controlled their speed this was “six of one and half a dozen of the other”. I can’t agree – there are other factors beyond this. The lorry driver is not vulnerable here, is in control of something vastly more dangerous to others, presumably doing this as part of their job and is essentially “overtaking” (eg. on the “wrong side of the road”). Arguably the driver inherently has “more control” also e.g. can accellerate and probably decellerate at this speed more quickly than cyclists and being elevated may have a better view in some situations.
However as others said the root issue is allowing people to store their cars in the road – even when they have garages / driveways. Beyond that the road design here may be inappropriate to the speed / volume of traffic. I haven’t checked the location but if conflict is regular a lower maximum speed or even a separate cycle track might help.
I know this road and conflict
I know this road and conflict is never a problem here going downhill. The main problem is drivers passing uphill and then slamming on their brakes. I agree the real problem is that drivers are allowed to use the Public highway as a free car park despite the inconvenience and danger they cause to traffic.
Fifth Gear wrote:
As much as I dislike inconsiderate parking, it’s not the parked vehicles that are causing the danger although they do potentially cause a hazard. Drivers have to account for parked vehicles much like they should account for poor road surfaces and conditions – they shouldn’t just assume that they can proceed at their usual speed without taking into account the reduced width of the road etc.
The lorry driver is legally
The lorry driver is legally allowed to overtake parked cars if the road ahead is clear.
If they can see the cyclists coming then they absolutely should not have overtaken, if they cannot see the cyclists and the road, as far as they can see is clear, then they can overtake legally.
Once they have begun their overtaking manoeuvre quickly pulling into a space is not without risk especially on a vehicle with limited visibility (whether such a vehicle should even be on the road is another matter entirely).
From the video it appears to me that the cyclists would not have been visible to the lorry driver when they began their manoeuvre and it was therefore an entirely legal manoeuvre.
The cyclists should have been able to stop in time and done so once they saw the lorry overtaking.
The lorry driver should have stopped once it became clear the cyclists were not going to stop.
The lorry driver began
The lorry driver began overtaking legally but then continued on the wrong side of the road despite the oncoming cyclists
Applying the brakes and pulling over to stop is hardly risky. Indeed it was far easier and safer for the driver to stop than for the cyclists.
Plainly the cyclists could have stopped if the driver had not continued to drive at them.
The lorry driver was
The lorry driver was completing the overtake of the parked cars.
Stopping is not risky.
Pulling in to a space without being 100% sure it is empty is.
You do not know if the cyclists could have stopped. That’s just conjecture.
If they could have they should have.
If they couldn’t have they were going too fast regardless of the lorry drivers actions.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I think those cars parked on the road are mainly to do with the construction site behind the hording, than the houses with drives and garages. (in this case)
wycombewheeler wrote:
Good spot. It might be nothing to do with the householders. However it often seems that once someone’s engaged builders whatever happens until the owners take possession of the site is “not our problem”.
Parked cars here but it’s often the footway / cycle track that gets blocked with vehicles or is used to put signs in. That needs to change – alternatives here [1] [2] [3] [4]. The construction companies need to sort their act out but it’s entirely within the power of those hiring them to say “and only leave your stuff within the site.” Obviously sensible exceptions apply (e.g. bringing in major bits of kit e.g. by crane) but we already have means to deal with that.
1 It was not a sharp bend.
1 It was not a sharp bend. The cyclists could see quite some way ahead and could have stopped for an obstruction. The problem is this was not an obstruction but an oncoming driver on the wrong side of the road who failed to stop or slow down.
2 I fail to see what a pedestrian would be doing on the wrong side of the road here but that would not have been any problem whatsoever.
3 I am not sure of the maximum dimensions of lorries but they don’t come much bigger than this. Obviously if there had been no space and the driver failed to stop the cyclists would have been killed, through no fault of their own.
4 The cyclists entered the bend at a speed where they could have stopped for an obstruction, just not one driven straight at them.
You don’t seem to be able to
You don’t seem to be able to see around the bend on the video.
Is it very different in real life?
I’ve personally encountered pedestrians all over the road and vehicles much wider than that one.
You should always be able to stop in the distance you can see.
If they could have stopped then they should have stopped.
If they couldn’t have stopped then they were riding too fast for the conditions.
The cyclist could see at
The cyclist could see at least 6 seconds ahead so could have stopped for an obstruction. The problem was the obstruction continued moving towards them. I don’t know how many more times this has to be explained.
167
167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
There was a break in the line of parked cars so the driver was required to utilise that opportunity. The idea that the driver was committed to the overtake is just wrong. The driver failed to stop overtaking when it was not safe and should have given way at least by slowing down. The cyclists would have been able to slow down to a safe speed had he done so. The driver could have slowed down or stopped easily while the cyclists going downhill were far less easily able to do so and had priority.
Even when not on a bike, I
Even when not on a bike, I see this situation all of the time…
1/ Increasing number of cars parked on the road, reducing the space for passing vehicles
2/ Increasing numbers of drivers who seem to have no sense of danger to themselves, never mind others, and just keep on driving, despite oncoming traffic and and obligation (on their part) to yield (or even slow down a wee bit)
These two things are really dodgy on a straight road, never mind on a bend, where vehicles will find themselves on the wrong side of the road, and unsighted.
To think that cyclists are thought of as entitled ***** who think that they own the road, is laughable when you consider these two types of behaviour (before we get started on the massive list of other despicable behaviour, that comes to mind)
Should be sat up taking
Should be sat up taking primary eyeballing the driver if they want him to yield, make it harder to overtake, hugging the edge and keeping rolling is just inviting him to move out and squeeze through when there isn’t much space, better still just stop and assume the truck will just go ahead anyway, that second rider is pretty lucky he didn’t get smacked on the head by the wing mirror…. yes the truck could have waited but it’s the cyclists taking all of the risk by not being cautious. Being right or having a camera doesn’t help you much if you are under the wheels of an HGV.
The cyclists were not
The cyclists were not “hugging the edge” as is clear on the video. Of course they moved to the left when the driver failed to slow or stop because they would have been killed if they hadn’t.
My point was that this
My point was that this happens, whether the oncoming vehicles are bikes, or not, so why you chose to (incorrectly) criticise the cyclists, in the context of my comment, is slightly perplexing
What also doesn’t help anyone
What also doesn’t help anyone, is the lazy council has let the bushes grow wild.
They may trim them straight once every decade. But they should be cut back in height and depth.
I’m willing to bet you’d gain nearly 1m of extra road surface. if cut back.
If you cut them down to 1m height, the cyclists and truck, in this case, would have seen each other earlier.
All it needs is a tractor with the right cutting equipment.
Councils are under a lot of
Councils are under a lot of pressure following covid and adult services provision. It is not surprising that there is not much spend on low priority stuff.
Apparently the country wants a low tax regime.
hirsute wrote:
FTFY 🙂
Almost all local authorities
Almost all local authorities contract out such maintenance so I presume it’s equally reasonable to claim that a “lazy private sector contractor has let the bushes grow wild”.
Mary Willoughby wrote:
You could argue the claim but the point is who will make it right for me? If it is the responsibility of a local authority it’s their responsibility to respond to complaints, check up on their contractors and get them to redo it / penalise / not use them in future / see them in court. Because that’s what we are all collectively paying them to do.
My knee operation has been
My knee operation has been postponed again, that must be because the NHS are “lazy”.
Mary Willoughby wrote:
Good luck for getting the operation sooner rather than later. My mother-in-law is waiting on a knee operation that’s been postponed a couple of times, so it’s not just you.
Mary Willoughby wrote:
In chrisonatrike’s defence, their comment wasn’t so much endorsing the description of it as ‘lazy’ as it was resisting the suggestion that the council can pass the responsibility off to a contractor. As the responsible authority, the buck stops with them (even if there are understandable reasons why they are unable to discharge all of those responsibilities).
Couldn’t have said it better
Couldn’t have said it better – so I didn’t.
Hopefully Mary gets the knee sorted sooner. I think she’s being provocative – as per the council example we can both know “the way things are” and question if we’re getting adequate service and value for money from those who are responsible for those services.
I used to live in this
I used to live in this village until recently. The road name “the street” hill has 3 bends and a 30mph zone with a school a bit further down after where the skip lorry emerged – at peak times it is very busy with parked cars for the school etc. Also at the bottom of the hill is overflow for the train station that is all day parking & restricts width of the road.I’ve ridden up & down this road over 300 times either on the commute, solo or group rides.
West Berks council see that allowing parking is traffic control!!! (fact)
Using the road regularly you’re aware of vehicles on the wrong side of the road and to make allowances to mItigate speed or maybe even stop, can be tricky when wet as there are 2 large metal covers to avoid before and after 2nd bend. What you’re also aware of is the possibility of speeding vehicles behind or not due care and attention.
The stretch of road is particularly hazardous with no help from the local authority permitting parking or enforcing hedge cutting of private land owners.This is also a route to school for children walking with narrow footpaths & overgrown vegetation.
Plus more & more traffic always in a hurry.
Going up the street was frustrating when vehicles would overtake then stop immediately in front to give way to oncoming vehicles!
Come on west berks highways sort this road out. Consider Safe route to school, venerable road users (a high usage), promote non vehicle reliance & get traffic flowing by prohibiting parking.
Gotta say, the driver gave
Gotta say, the driver gave the bare minimum of room for the parked vehicles so he could give as much room as possible for the cyclists..
Hang on – so now you should
Hang on – so now you should leave more space for the living than the inanimate? Driver shouldn’t pander to these entitled humans!
Or alternatively – the driver’s increasing the risk to people in the parked cars as well as not doing much for the cyclists.
This is nothing near the worst on NMOTD but on the principle of me slowing down and being prepared to stop on my bike when I see a cat in the road, the truck driver should do the same for cyclists. Because he’s in “their space” and it’s a little more likely that they’d be mangled than him by collision. I presume that’s a “professional driver” so they should be doing this to a high standard. And it doesn’t matter what the cyclists’ behaviour is. Should the driver slow for a pedestrian? Or a child on a bike?
Sorry, but it’s a no from me.
Sorry, but it’s a no from me. Truck already well established on ‘wrong’ side of the road, commited to passing parked vehicles and those truck things don’t stop on a sixpence. If a local rider, then should know the potential danger round that bend, if not local then the wise adage about being able to stop in the space ahead you can see to be clear would be wisely applied. Not brilliant driving either and with far greater responsibility to be aware when in charge of a seriously lethal vehicle.
So the driver was ‘committed’
So the driver was ‘committed’ despite the fact there was a gap in the parked cars and couldn’t apply his brakes? That’s some committment the driver displayed. The cyclists would have been able to stop if the obstruction had not carried on moving towards them on the wrong side of the road.
Mungecrundle wrote:
You’re applying different standards there. Being able to stop in the space ahead you can see to be clear should apply to both the cyclists and the truck driver.
A bit marginal but I would
A bit marginal but I would side with the cyclists (obviously). I would have probably done the same. There was plenty of space for the lorry to give way so I would be tempted to enforce my right of way. I might have taken a more primary position to emphasize my intention but not sure that would have made a difference.
However, at the risk of whataboutery, if I’ve committed to passing parked cars on my left, giving the recommended 1m, how many drivers stop and give way to me? Cars squeezing through when they clearly don’t have right of way will happen on every ride.
Having gone through the video
Having gone through the video again.
From the monent the lorry has sight of the cyclist to when they would have to pull in to the gap in parked cars is about a second, after that it would be too late to stop in the gap. Not a lot of time to see the cyclis, decide the cyclist will be coming past the cars and get into the gap without hitting parked cars.
As they pass I’m pretty sure the lorry is moving slower than the cyclist.
I’m not sure the driver can do much else, other than come to a dead stop in the same position and let the cyclist squeeze past, which he might have done if the cyclist had stopped, or might not, but as the cyclist was passing while he was still moving, no longer worth stopping.
The point is that the driver
The point is that the driver only had to apply the brakes to have allowed the cyclists time to slow down and pass safely. The driver made no attempt to slow down at all and consequently the cyclists were still travelling quite fast when forced to squeeze through the tiny gap. The lorry is definitely moving slower ang going uphill would have been able to stop quite quickly, unlike the cyclists.
driver speed is very low by
driver speed is very low by my estimation, how do you know he didn’t slow from 20 to 10 after seeing the cyclist? also watching the cyclist’s rear footage it’s clear the second cyclists slows much more than the first.
errr because he didn’t slow
errr because he didn’t slow from 20 to 10, he kept going at the same speed. The second cyclist slowed more as he had more opportunity but it made no difference either way at that point. Blame the cyclists if you like but good luck when it happens to you.
Fifth Gear wrote:
Judging by how far the lorry moves per second I reckon it is doing about 15mph, quite a cautious approach for passing the parked cars
Not really blaming the cyclists myself (what for? no collision), just pointing out that the cyclist had more opportunity to stop, the lorry could have stopped blocking the road, it could not have pulled into the gap in parked cars, just not enough time.
Cyclist could have slowed more or stopped as well but decided to continue through the gap. That is his perogative, he is the one at risk.
I don’t see how the second rider has more oportunity, as they are behind the first so have less view and the lorry will certainly come into sight later, but despite that he applies brakes first (or harder)
When I come across vehicles approaching me on narrow roads, I normally hold a wide position until they slow to this sort of speed and then pass. Passing at 15mph each is fine, unlike when drivers think they can pass at 40-50mph. So I wouldn’t have an issue at all if this happened to me.
As someone with an HGV
As someone with an HGV licence I can categorically state if that was me driving that skip lorry on my HGV test I would have failed.
My instructors rammed into me “you cross that central lane marking you damn well make sure it is clear ahead. You ALWAYS give way to oncoming vehicles that have right of way”.
So, the lorry driver was going too fast whilst straddling the centre line in order to be able to give way if something appeared (which it did, the cyclists) and to pull back over to his own side of the road. He also failed to slow down once he was ‘compromised’ by being unable to return to his own side of the road in the gap that did appear, thus compromising the safety of the opposite traffic that had right of way.
What do suggest the skip
What do suggest the skip driver do . Send someone on ahead to have a look round the corner.
When he pulled out the road was clear.
But then he failed to stop
But then he failed to stop when the cyclists appeared. Do keep up.
But he did pull over to give
But he did pull over to give them room and they went through it. He had good visibility of them so no problem.
If I’d been in my car or on my motorbike or on my bike I would have stopped the minute I saw the truck coming through the gap.
I wonder if some cyclists get into a sort of trance where nothing must stop their progress no matter what.
No he didn’t slow, stop or
No he didn’t slow, stop or pull over. I look forward to your video showing you braking, retaining control and stopping whilst cycling round a bend down a steep hill. Apparently you can do that in 3 seconds so well done.
I wonder if some motorists get into a sort of trance when nothing must stop their progress no matter what.
” braking, retaining control
” braking, retaining control and stopping whilst cycling round a bend down a steep hill.”
so youre saying they where out of control.
Thats a shocker. Heres a useful tip. if cycling downhill on a bendy road remember you might have to stop suddenly because its not a stage of the Tour where the road has been emptied before you its a public highway and you know its clear for exactly as far as you can see.
nicmason wrote:
I agree with you on this (not so much the attitude, but whatever). Although it was the truck driver that caused the danger here, there’s still the need for cyclists to be aware of their stopping distances.
No they weren’t out of
No they weren’t out of control. They had visibility 6 seconds ahead but the driver kept driving at them, thereby reducing their opportunity to respond effectively. It really isn’t difficult to understand unless you are a motor supremacist.
If you were to stop and give
If you were to stop and give way to the lorry where is the only sensible place to do so?
Before the first parked car.
The point at which they passed the lorry was beyond that car.
The argument that it was the movement of the lorry which prevented them from stopping in time is therefore nonsense.
If they were not able to stop by the first parked car they were riding too fast for the conditions.
That rather sounds like
That rather sounds like unable to stop in the distance they can see. Why are they going so fast on a steep hill where they can see a hazard in the form of parked cars?
Even in a car, I would have braked before getting close to the parked cars regardless of any traffic that had started to emerge.
nicmason wrote:
Good suggestion. Maybe we could a modern day postillion for motorists? Or how about a man with a red flag to go before … on a bicycle?
The lorry driver would have
The lorry driver would have stopped if it was a car coming the other way.
Not in my experience
Not in my experience
Would the lorry driver have
Would the lorry driver have stopped if it had been a “committed” tank coming the other way?
Or would the car have stopped
Or would the car have stopped first?
The cyclists were travelling
The cyclists were travelling at a similar speed to what a car might be doing in the circumstances. They were right up against the hedge, which meant their visibility was reduced as to what might be around the bend. They saw the truck before the driver could see them, because the near side of the truck came into their view first. All of this means they have to take responsibility for responding to the hazard and cannot absolve themselves because it’s their right of way. But they didn’t slow down at all, just kept on coming. The truck driver had about half a second to react and no time to pull into the space before the cyclists reach him. You see him start to do so, but since the cyclists continue on as before he reasonably deduces that they have decided that the space available to them is sufficient, as they are not trying to stop. I can’t see anyone has done anything wrong here. In terms of lessons, perhaps the cyclists could have positioned themselves to get better visibility, and therefore both parties would have seen the other sooner. Then, both would have had to move to the left to avoid a collision, the driver would have had more time to do so and everyone could calm down.
Nige bikes and drives wrote:
This is true, the drive side only comes into view just as the video clicks to 4s, as it clicks to 5s the lorry is already 1/4 past the space he woud have had to have pulled in to.
Does this apply to people pulling out of driveways between parked cars? the drivers coming down the road clear have the best view and cannot absolve themselves of resposnsibility, while the drivers emerging from a drive have their view restricted by storage of personal property on the public highway.
Pretty sure the law doesn’t work this way. “he could see me coming out, but I couldn’t see him so he should hve stopped.” is not going to cut any ice.
The cyclists were not right
The cyclists were not right up against the hedge and had a clear view 6 seconds ahead. The driver had plenty of time to react and deliberately chose to continue driving on the wrong side of the road towards the cyclists. There were 3 seconds between the driver having a view of the cyclists and the near miss. The fact the cyclists could see the lorry 1 second before the driver could see them doesn’t change anything. Plainly the cyclists did slow down and you can even see braking in the rear view camara footage. The driver was easily able to slow and stop whereas cyclists going downhill cannot do so easily and retain control. I’d love to see a video of you demonstrating your emergency braking skills on a bend going downhill on a bicycle. The point is the driver only had to apply his brakes to allow the cyclists to slow down safely, but he refused to do so and that is the problem. As someone else pointed out the driver would have failed his HGV test for that.
“Nige bikes and drives”
“Nige bikes and drives”
Is this a sockpuppet for the good Mr Garrage of this parish?