Near Miss of the Day 674: “The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” say police – that “someone” was a cyclist

Or rather, the driver didn't have to inconvenience anyone if only a little patient had been exercised and the rules of the road obeyed. Oh wait...

Do I have to take one everywhere ? Is it like 'dogs must be carried...' ?

I wish you'd have more patients with other people's typhoos, you big teas.

Mungecrundle wrote:

If the Police can write to the submitter of the complaint to state "No further action", then surely they could also write to the registered keeper of the vehicle involved stating the same but maybe including a few words of advice. Such as the inadvisability of overtaking at junctions or approach to roundabouts. Anyone can make a mistake and very few drivers go out with the intent of hurting anyone, but being alerted to those errors of judgement, even without sanction, cannot be a bad thing.

No, that might encourage more people to submit footage, as word gets around that action will be taken

It's much better this way.....

Mungecrundle wrote:

If the Police can write to the submitter of the complaint to state "No further action", then surely they could also write to the registered keeper of the vehicle involved stating the same but maybe including a few words of advice. Such as the inadvisability of overtaking at junctions or approach to roundabouts. Anyone can make a mistake and very few drivers go out with the intent of hurting anyone, but being alerted to those errors of judgement, even without sanction, cannot be a bad thing.

or even reminding them not to overtake other road users where there is traffic calming, you know as per the highway code.

Fuck off troll.

Oh now you are saying video evidence is king.... but when it comes to your hero Nick Freeman you seem to say that there are other circumstances at play. Go back under your bridge....

Garage at Large wrote:

It's difficult to tell if the car had completed its overtake or not going over the speed hump, so yes without that vital video evidence there is nothing to be done here.

Do you even read the drivel you post? An overtake is complete when the driver has safely returned to their own lane. Here is the driver crossing the speed bump with at least 3/4 of their vehicle in the oncoming traffic lane. There is nothing equivocal or "difficult to tell" about that.

Oh well done indeed, great work. Have a sticker.

Garage at Large wrote:

Hey if it makes you feel better calling me that instead of other people and your partner I'm all for it

I beg your pardon? Justify that remark or withdraw it.

Ah - I see the problem now - a spatio-temporal anomoly was causing the rear of the car to travel faster than the front, so the driver couldn't safely slow without risking both themselves and the cyclist collapsing into a localised black hole.

Garage at Large wrote:

... so much so that I've mocked up a reconstruction in Photoshop with the wider angle.

An excellent reconstruction - but in your photoshopping you appear to have cropped out the front of the bike (understandable oversight because who'd expect cyclists to be making a practical journey). I've restored it:

Garage at Large wrote:

But on that particular picture you've shared you cannot see where the car's back endis on the road. It would appear to me to be well infront of the cyclist, so much so that I've mocked up a reconstruction in Photoshop with the wider angle.

 I didn't realise it was a short wheelbase - no wonder they had to slam the brakes on for the speed cushion, or they would have risked tipping it.

Btw, not at all difficult to see who was in the wrong, without the need for photoshop (but I've annotated it just so it is clear for you) - 

jh2727 wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

But on that particular picture you've shared you cannot see where the car's back endis on the road. It would appear to me to be well infront of the cyclist, so much so that I've mocked up a reconstruction in Photoshop with the wider angle.

 I didn't realise it was a short wheelbase - no wonder they had to slam the brakes on for the speed cushion, or they would have risked tipping it.

Btw, not at all difficult to see who was in the wrong, without the need for photoshop (but I've annotated it just so it is clear for you) - 

We just need to bear in mind that facts don't belong anywhere in Nigels interpretations.  He likes to lie and make sh!t up with alarming regularity.  Yet he thinks he has the moral high ground

Garage at Large wrote:

But on that particular picture you've shared you cannot see where the car's back endis on the road. It would appear to me to be well infront of the cyclist, so much so that I've mocked up a reconstruction in Photoshop with the wider angle.

pretty sure the video shows a 5 door golf, not a 3 door.

He shouldn't be overtraking in the first place. Rule 153 is very clear. "On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas."

Garage at Large wrote:

It's difficult to tell if the car had completed its overtake or not going over the speed hump, so yes without that vital video evidence there is nothing to be done here.

he certainly hadn't completed it before slowing down for the speed hump, which leads the question why start an overtake when you know you will slow to the speed of the other road user before completing it?

The idea that it would be completely unforeseen for another vehilce to come aroud the bend on their side of the road is incredible to me. Someone pulling oout of their driveway without looking left as well as right might be unforeseen, someone coming the other way on a public road is hardly a surprise.

Garage at Large wrote:

It's difficult to tell if the car had completed its overtake or not going over the speed hump, so yes without that vital video evidence there is nothing to be done here.

Did you go downstairs from your bedroom and check what your mum said about this overtake?  Or did you just whatsapp her?

When was the last time she let you take your bike out on the road? 

Another example of your famed politeness and courtesy.

Garage at Large wrote:

No I was talking to your wife actually, in light of the Sex and the City reboot she's very keen on buying you a Peloton for Christmas.

How very 1980s of you to assume I have a wife as opposed to a husband.  How about you throw in some casual racism too?

And just for reference maybe go back and look at when you insulted him before with your assumptions...... 

TriTaxMan wrote:

How about you throw in some casual racism too?

Oh, he's covered that base a number of times in the past.

.

Oh really? He could have anticipated his need to slow on the speed bump. Just bad driving.

.

In what way is the lens 'narrow'?

One look at the still image tells me that the lens is a fairly wide angle lens, as fitted to pretty much all action/dash cameras. These lenses will give an exaggerated impression compared to the human eye, but in the opposite way to your suggestion. 

Perhaps the OP could let us know what camera was used, so we can know for certain what the focal length and angle of view of the lens is.

It's an apeman A80.  I believe the FOV is 170 degrees.

I was experimenting with low res high frame rate at the time to see if it helped pick up reg numbers in poor light which I find a problem at this time of year. This sample is reduced to 30fps to cut down file size which hopefully explains the low quality.

Thanks Bungle. Since a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera, with a diagonal field of view of approx. 84deg. is generally considered 'wide angle' I'd say that a camera with 170 deg. field of view is extra, if not ultra wide angle.

So not so narrow.