Updated Near Miss of the Day 671 – and “it’s not good news” from the police

Unfortunately the comment will probably be along the lines of 

" it is our procedure not to comment on individual cases".

They could then be asked about general guidelines used by the force which would be even more useful. If road.cc don't ask we'll never know.

Primary position was taken, the driver pretty much forced his way through

I wouldn't have said the cyclist managed to reach primary position at any point - primary position would have been right in the centre of the lane. The rider stays out of the gutter (which is good) but still is always in a secondary position.

I phrase that slightly awkwardly because after the box van goes past, we can see the cyclist start to move to the right - it's possible the cyclist tried to move into primary position but the lorry forced its way through before he could. 

I think we have different ideas of primary. If primary had been taken, there would not have been enough space between the prked cars and the cyclist.

Looks to be a secondary (unless there is some camera fov effect).

Yes, primary, adopted immediately after the oncoming van passed, would have prevented the Hooper driver from passing as he did.

This demonstrates the lesser addressed features of Cyclecraft and NSCT, those of observation and negotiation.

We can't see the cyclist's actions, but continuing rear observations are vital approaching a situation like this, where the outline of the available carriageway is continually changing, and features such as shops and other traffic make for a dynamic environment.

The rear obs should be full, turning the body from the waist (not just a neck-turn glance).  That enables a proper, effective observation; and it telegraphs to drivers behind that the cyclist is aware of their presence and may be about to reposition himself.  Often, the cyclist may move their hand out in a partial signal while twisting - not a full right-turn signal, but a gesture that nevertheless conveys a message (negotiation) that the cyclist is moving out or needs space.

I actually got a mini driver to brake last week when they were about to barrel though at 40+ mph with 2 oncoming cars. I put my arm out and down and shouted 'whoa' (not they would have heard !) and they then waited until it was clear.

Of course, they could have just scrubbed off a bit of speed earlier for a smooth overtake.

GMBasix wrote:

Perhaps we'd all like to call Hoopers & Sons tomorrow and comment on their driver's level of respect for other road users.

Better thing to do is hammer them on trustpilot. Happy to start the ball rolling. They do care about their reviews.

Update: Apparently they're not on trustpilot so scrap that idea.

Not on TrustPilot, but they do have some Google reviews?

Garage at Large wrote:

You do know that the business owners haven't had a chance to respond to the incident?

Seems disproportionate to bombard a small business with negative publicity when the owner might not have even realised anything had occurred. I'm sure no one thinks that driving was acceptable.

You do know that the video was submitted to the police over 6 weeks ago, therefore it is fair to assume that a 6 week window is time enough for a private business to respond.  No?

Also, looks like a "Family Business" from their website so quite easily could have been one of the 2 generations of Hoopers that own the business that perpetrated the dodgy overtake so they quite possibly wouldn't respond in any case.

Please don't feed the troll.

You think that the police ever contacted the company concerned? Not even an NIP I suspect.

Garage at Large wrote:

No, you can't attribute blame to the inanimate objects parked perfectly legally.

My God, I actually agree with you, this is surely a sign that the end of days is nigh. However, what you can attribute blame to is idiotic road design that prioritises people's "right" to have free storage for their private property taking up at least a third of the road width to the severe detriment of road users' safety.

Garage at Large wrote:

Quote:

the situation is exacerbated by parked vehicles

No, you can't attribute blame to the inanimate objects parked perfectly legally. There was only one person at fault there and it was the lorry driver.

I'm always weary of trailers like this, as often the contributing factor behind these near misses is that the driver literally forgets they even have a trailer attached in the first place.

Nope - this was a close pass as soon as the driver started it (check positions of cars). It just got worse when they pulled in. And as stated, saving precisely 3 seconds when you check this on the map.

It's as logical to point out that this kind of thing is made worse (or more frequent) because we currently generally allow people to stow their properly along the sides of the roads* as it is to say that a factor is a driver "forgetting" that they have a trailer. A "professional" driver insofar as this appears to be an employee of a company towing their equipment.

You're quite correct about "forgetting" one sense. But what is forgotten is anything that drivers have passed - as soon as they've got their door beyond it. That appears to be rather common.

* On this road this is clearly such a problem that - unusually - the council have not just put in double yellows but marked parking bays. Our UK malaise - you can park anywhere you're not specifically prohibited - although it's wider than this given pavement parking. The real problem here though is that this should clearly be a "street" - minus through traffic - but it looks like it's a road (for through traffic to get somewhere) namely the start of the A227.

chrisonatrike wrote:

a factor is a driver "forgetting" that they have a trailer. A "professional" driver insofar as this appears to be an employee of a company towing their equipment.

So isn't it just a fantastic idea that the government is going to start allowing anyone to tow a 3.5T trailer without an additional test?

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

a factor is a driver "forgetting" that they have a trailer. A "professional" driver insofar as this appears to be an employee of a company towing their equipment.

So isn't it just a fantastic idea that the government is going to start allowing anyone to tow a 3.5T trailer without an additional test?

Given the skills of some of "the professionals" I think the additional carnage will be in the same ballpark regardless. I'd say without elevating driving to the level of flying a plane the calculation runs:

number of humans driving x hours driven x hazards in the environment x constant human accident factor *.

Paid motor vehicle drivers are held to entirely different (lower) standards than those paid to drive a train, a boat, a plane. Yes a direct comparison is unfair as most drivers have additional duties or the driving is secondary to their main role (e.g. crane driver). Note though that navigational officers on ships also have other duties.

* I think suggesting there is a constant human factor is reasonable. There are certain specific factors - which e.g. insurers note! Outside of those, because no-one treats driving like flying a plane everyone fluctuates wildly in their degree of focus. People will definitely have different levels of training / ability but they're all zoned out at some point. Particular risks are associated with youth, demonstrated recklessness / prior wrecks, certain health conditions and possibly age, being male (insurers noticed that being female is associated with fewer accidents). But the numbers of these are reasonably constant. Without the much greater training, focus and environmental prompts / support that we provide to pilots / train drivers then people are on average going to hit stuff at a certain rate, more or less.

Sriracha wrote:

Quote:

shows a motorist in Kent being given a close pass

MacMichael strikes again!

and also

Quote:

the cyclist being overtaking

It wasn't a lorry either, looks like a 3.5 tonne tipper.